Tue, Jul 22, 2014, 10:38 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Abbott Laboratories Message Board

crazyness42003 27 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 20, 2014 12:10 PM Member since: Feb 18, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • I know aspirin is listed, any others?

  • Piper Jaffray analyst Charles Duncan believes animal models have better predictive value in some areas: An example would be in antiviral drug development, where it's pretty easy to gauge efficacy in animal models.
    He would consider VGX-3100 a therapeutic vaccine, because it turns out that these cancers are the result of HPV and cervical dysplasia.
    He thinks recent weakness in Orexigen shares is primarily driven by the negative perspective that institutional investors have generally associated with the obesity market.
    Veteran Senior Biotechnology Analyst Charles Duncan of Piper Jaffray & Co. sees platform companies as the perfect way to play a consolidating market. We've had a big run in biotech, and Duncan believes now is the time to identify, through careful diligence, companies that can advance in a more temperate market. In this interview with The Life Sciences Report, Duncan discusses five biotech and specialty pharma innovators poised to produce therapies enabled by versatile and scalable technology platforms that target multiple disease indications.

    The Life Sciences Report: Charles, you are a veteran biotech sellside analyst. What differentiates your work from that of other analysts in the field?

    Charles Duncan: I am firmly committed to being a biotech generalist, but I am a neuropharmacologist by training, and have a fair amount of experience in that area-that's where I can differentiate my work from other analysts. Analysts generally gravitate toward oncology and therapy areas with a well-bedded set of success factors in the clinic. By contrast, I deal with relatively complicated sets of endpoints, at least in terms of clinical development in neurology. I have more comfort and experience in this area than most on the Street.

    One example is Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ACAD), a company that I assisted in taking public while at a previous firm. We currently cover it here at Piper Jaffray, where we have it rated Overweight, which is the top rating in our system.

    We were involved in not only interpreting the Phase 2 trial data of its compound pimavanserin in Parkinson's disease psychosis [PDP], but also its initial Phase 3 data. We were frankly disappointed in that first Phase 3 study, so we got involved in understanding the changes made to the Phase 3 protocol, and in helping investors become comfortable with the second Phase 3 trial. That study read out well, and there was a dramatic transition from the $100-150 million [$100-150M] market cap level to roughly $2 billion [$2B] today.

    TLSR: Can you elucidate a theme about your work?

    CD: Thematically, we're focused on small-cap neurology and oncology innovators. I believe small caps generally outperform larger caps over time. We have some coverage in gene therapy, as well as in other clinical areas and special situations where we believe we can conduct diligence and get a handle on a differentiated viewpoint.

    TLSR: In the April 3 edition of Nature, there's a short news article entitled "Drug Development: The Modelling Challenge." Preclinical drug development is about translating research from animal models to human clinical trials. But in the case of neurocognitive disease, it's hard to understand preclinical data because investigators can look at the signs of disease, but the animals can't tell the investigators their symptoms. That's clearly the biggest problem preclinical investigators, analysts and investors face in neurodegenerative disease, isn't it?

    CD: That absolutely is the case. Animal models have better predictive value in some areas: An example would be in antiviral drug development, where it's pretty easy to gauge efficacy in animal models. When investigators are able to eradicate the virus, or at least reduce viral load, there is direct predictive evidence. There are other diseases-even oncology or hematology-where animal models demonstrate good predictive value for later success in humans.

    But in the case of neurocognition and behavioral studies, including pain, it is much more subjective. Also, skeletomuscular disorders, such as weakness, can be very subjective.

  • Piper Jaffray analyst Charles Duncan believes animal models have better predictive value in some areas: An example would be in antiviral drug development, where it's pretty easy to gauge efficacy in animal models.
    He would consider VGX-3100 a therapeutic vaccine, because it turns out that these cancers are the result of HPV and cervical dysplasia.
    He thinks recent weakness in Orexigen shares is primarily driven by the negative perspective that institutional investors have generally associated with the obesity market.
    Veteran Senior Biotechnology Analyst Charles Duncan of Piper Jaffray & Co. sees platform companies as the perfect way to play a consolidating market. We've had a big run in biotech, and Duncan believes now is the time to identify, through careful diligence, companies that can advance in a more temperate market. In this interview with The Life Sciences Report, Duncan discusses five biotech and specialty pharma innovators poised to produce therapies enabled by versatile and scalable technology platforms that target multiple disease indications.

    The Life Sciences Report: Charles, you are a veteran biotech sellside analyst. What differentiates your work from that of other analysts in the field?

    Charles Duncan: I am firmly committed to being a biotech generalist, but I am a neuropharmacologist by training, and have a fair amount of experience in that area-that's where I can differentiate my work from other analysts. Analysts generally gravitate toward oncology and therapy areas with a well-bedded set of success factors in the clinic. By contrast, I deal with relatively complicated sets of endpoints, at least in terms of clinical development in neurology. I have more comfort and experience in this area than most on the Street.

    One example is Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ACAD), a company that I assisted in taking public while at a previous firm. We currently cover it here at Piper Jaffray, where we have it rated Overweight, which is the top rating in our system.

    We were involved in not only interpreting the Phase 2 trial data of its compound pimavanserin in Parkinson's disease psychosis [PDP], but also its initial Phase 3 data. We were frankly disappointed in that first Phase 3 study, so we got involved in understanding the changes made to the Phase 3 protocol, and in helping investors become comfortable with the second Phase 3 trial. That study read out well, and there was a dramatic transition from the $100-150 million [$100-150M] market cap level to roughly $2 billion [$2B] today.

    TLSR: Can you elucidate a theme about your work?

    CD: Thematically, we're focused on small-cap neurology and oncology innovators. I believe small caps generally outperform larger caps over time. We have some coverage in gene therapy, as well as in other clinical areas and special situations where we believe we can conduct diligence and get a handle on a differentiated viewpoint.

    TLSR: In the April 3 edition of Nature, there's a short news article entitled "Drug Development: The Modelling Challenge." Preclinical drug development is about translating research from animal models to human clinical trials. But in the case of neurocognitive disease, it's hard to understand preclinical data because investigators can look at the signs of disease, but the animals can't tell the investigators their symptoms. That's clearly the biggest problem preclinical investigators, analysts and investors face in neurodegenerative disease, isn't it?

    CD: That absolutely is the case. Animal models have better predictive value in some areas: An example would be in antiviral drug development, where it's pretty easy to gauge efficacy in animal models. When investigators are able to eradicate the virus, or at least reduce viral load, there is direct predictive evidence. There are other diseases-even oncology or hematology-where animal models demonstrate good predictive value for later success in humans.

    But in the case of neurocognition and behavioral studies, including pain, it is much more subjective. Also, skeletomuscular disorders, such as weakness, can be very subjective.

  • crazyness42003 crazyness42003 Apr 25, 2014 9:24 AM Flag

    Dum@$$, Arcadia is the one who submitted the patents for Star, Acadia CEO is the one who boght 1.2 M shares last quarter of the 2 Million purchased. Arcadia CEO also as a research company that runs and develops drug trials. If you did your DD like you pretend you say. This is not hard to figure out. Again, ROME wasn't build in a day, or even 10 years!

  • crazyness42003 crazyness42003 Apr 26, 2014 10:36 AM Flag

    I can sit here and list thousands of companies that have succeeded and failed, that took 10 yrs plus. So this argument would be pointless.

  • On ArNA everyday too.
    GLTAL

  • You stated in (b) that: the eccentric exercise protocol did not elicit increase in the pro-inflammatory cytokines (c-reactive protein and TNF-α). Those who are not experienced in the field would look at your comment and make the mistake that you sound like you know what you're talking about.

    BUT: Anatabine/Anatabloc will not elicit a PRO-INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE, BUT A ANTI-INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE TO THE CYTOKINES. HENCE THE REDUCTION IN CRP LEVELS.

    My apologies I stopped there, because if you are a Ph.D candidate (a competent one) this would have stuck out like a sore thumb!

    Have a nice day :) You can always point out a short seller.

  • Look at stars slides

  • crazyness42003 by crazyness42003 May 5, 2014 8:02 AM Flag

    Up Up we go.

  • crazyness42003 by crazyness42003 May 6, 2014 8:00 AM Flag

    Here we go, shorties are covering!!!!

  • crazyness42003 by crazyness42003 May 20, 2014 8:14 AM Flag

    This could b a good day!

  • They're continuing to tighten this spring until it blast off. 50 Million short and no shares to buy. Previous examples Dndn, icpt, FSLR, tSLA, the list goes on. One 15000 script week we'll blast off.

  • Since day one of approval; Why? They want your shares! If they had absolutely no interest they would not be here. It's not that the institutions can't afford to buy more shares it's because they can't get any more because retail longs will not give them up. So they nickel and dime a few thousand here and there; naked short persistently.
    If you don't believe me go to the SECs website and see all the Fail to delivers the last two weeks of April. I've got twenty more years till retirement shorty.

  • JC and AF continue to pump companies that the institutions have anointed great buys with no real drugs on the market. From VVUS to ISIS, they fail to do any real underlying research.
    That's what happens when you have a chogey boy doing your research. He's a political science major that has the ability to two sentences together.
    I would ask the street, don't you make enough money to hire real doctors to write for you. It would have to pay off much better than the HACK you have now writing for you.

  • There vol numbers are not like the NASD real time vol numbers why?

  • crazyness42003 by crazyness42003 May 29, 2014 9:21 AM Flag

    Love seeing these so called analyst who aren't doctors tell me what the better drug is.

  • crazyness42003 crazyness42003 May 30, 2014 7:59 AM Flag

    That was around noon time for each. You're telling me at the exact time of day you have a difference of over 300k more shares. Where's Goog and yah pulling there data from.

  • Blockbuster status. Case and point, shorts have cover almost 20 Million shares in five months and the share price hasn't budged. They (DTCC) control the market makers. The people who know have been saying it over the last few weeks on CNBC and congress, SEC are sitting on their hands.

  • Just look at TS, MF, now SA all have lost all crediabilty when it comes to identifying good small cap stocks.

ABT
43.09+0.13(+0.30%)Jul 22 4:01 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.