Have you ever read the terms of the settlement? Do you even know what they are? Do you understand that the patent infringement was for the basic molecule manufacture in the process? They can change the trademark or formulation or any myriad of parts of the process but the settlement prohibits the marketing of any form of Iplex. When will you people finally understand that you know nothing of which you speak?
What part of INSM's statement about Iplex don't you people understand. INSM is done with Iplex unless it's a licensing deal with someone after the 2018 expiration of the settlement. They will not further advance any money for any developement of Iplex. Period. Get over it!
Good luck! I purchased just before Allan et al, took over Celtrix but didn't post for six years, give or take. I started to post as recurveman @ Dec. 2005 then changed to doughcm. I'm with you when you say you saw the potential for Iplex. The drug was handled poorly and I'm sure that Andreas Sommers was thoroughly disappointed with the whole deal. I've stayed invested here and now I think after all the downs over the years we may be able to realize some of the profit we invested here for. Everyone has their exit point and I wish you well. It's been a long haul and if this doesn't pan out now I will wash my hands of INSM.
Yes. They are one and the same. Ever notice each time the moron posts the idiot follows shortly to tell you how wonderful he is?
True Levon. When Lewis took over and the board was rid of the dead wood and the company and therefore the stock finally achieved the SP where it should be. Lewis is a savvy businessman and put in place the personnel to move the company forward. Hopefully all will be worth the years-long holding.
Yep. I can see it closing in the red today. Amazing how you "chartists" can apply these trends to a company like INSM. What a bunch of morons.
Amazing that your numbers are so much more accurate than CNBC. They show total institutional qwnership of 80%.
INSM just had their CC for the third quarter and there will be no earnings for several years, numbnuts. Secondly, the beginnings of life on earth are thought to have come from asteroids impacting earth. And maybe you should research the definition of DNA before you speak of "earth DNA", whatever that is. At least know what you're talking about before you open your mouth, or post.
Sorry Blue I didn't read to the end of the post. My post wasn't a nastygram to you I just didn't know oif you listened/read the CC. I also thought Lewis did a proper job of refuting AF's BS.
He did address the article with his last question to Gupta, which she answered. It refuted the articles claim that INSM dodged the criteria used in the trial. The parameters were dictated by the EMEA for the trial. Did you listen to the CC?
INSM let Moxley design the trial and it was their fault the trial primary endpoint wasn't met. Insread of designing the trial primary endpoint to reflect the strength of IPLEX, which was the building of muscle mass and endocrine benefits, they used the six minute walking function, which wasn't met. Go back and read the full trial results and it's obvious Moxley was a poor choice to design the trial.
IPLEX works just as it should. IPLEX did not disappoint moron. The patent infringement is why IPLEX is not on the market. If you knew anything about the drug's potential you would know that. Maybe you should ask Andreas Sommer about IPLEX's potential uses. You are pathetic.
I am so glad you know more than the chief medical officer and ceo of INSM pertaining to the patient population of Europe and Japan. You're one of the biggest idiotic, lying morons who ever posted on this board.