Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. Message Board

Just another day on the ONXX roller coaster.

{{you actually think long term SNTA will be ok?? LMAO}}

We know that you don't think holywallst. I wrote the following

{{Actually, the target population for Galaxy 2 showed a 4 month survival benefit in the interim Galaxy 1 update at ASCO.}}

You responded with {{i dont even know what all that means}}

Please don't think your opinion regarding SNTA has any weight to me. Now that the idiot shorts serial posting of the same non-sense on the board has died down, I can mention a few things about the data. What I don't like is that in the 1st interim analysis, SNTA pooled past smokers & never smoked in one group but placed the current smokers in a separate group. In this ASCO update, SNTA pool current smokers + past smokers but placed never smoked in one group. Just present each group as a separate bit of data, then pool them if you like.

On the positive side, women in all adeno and the 6 mo group did quite well. That bias provides some hope for the breast cancer trial as HER2 is a major client of HSP90.

If you want to know what I think, this selling of SNTA is way overdone. Things looked to have finally settled down. I sold off 40% on my SNTA just over $5, so if thing remain settled I will buy at half of that back, hopefully under $4.

Adam didn't make any prediction, but rather he talked about the data after the fact. I am saying his dismissal of the data and saying SNTA's prospects are bleak is off base. A few more events will determine how that after the interim data prediction will bear out. These include the final Galaxy data, the interim ENCHANT breast cancer data, and ALK+ NSCLC data. You are a short term trader, but I am looking at the long term. Capisce?

I like Adam and enjoy reading his columns. However, he is no biotech expert and his track record is less than stellar. His dismissal of SNTA is over the top and wrong.

I do like reading Feuerstein's columns and opinions, but he is hardly an authority that one should heed.

The final data from Galaxy 1 will be reported in the second half of this year, and the initial data for the phase II ENCHANT breast cancer trial will also come in later this year. The 1st interim data form Galaxy 2 won't be reported until 2014 so the first two data releases will have the chance to impact SNTA before any Galaxy 2 data is reported. As far as the ENCHANT trial, SNTA added an combination Paclitaxel + Ganetespib arm in the spring so I don't think that data will be available in the first ENCHANT data release.

Not quite sure where the little fellow is, but he sure isn't missed.

PGNX drop form $10+ to under $5 because the FDA rejected the sNDA.

Isn't the Motley Fool article the second time that some idiot tried to say PGNX is ready to plunge? The last time came when PGNX reached $5, and now this one comes out the day after a big rise. That rise was triggered by the FDA agreeing to create an advisory board to review the sNDA for Relistor in chronic pain. The author of that Motley Fool article wrote that Relistor was dead, but the chronic pain market is the biggest one out there for Relistor, so saying it is dead is ludicrous. It may be in the ICU, but it sure isn't dead. Sounds like attempted manipulation by a short to me. In any event. all that matter regarding Relistor is what the advisory board says.

Don't look at me.

No, PGNX most certainly isn't priced as if Relistor was approved for their sNDA.

hugeman, I figured that the FDA would have granted Relistor approval for chronic pain, along with a mandated phase IV follow-up. The real shame for patients and for PGNX shareholders is that they continue to be punished because of side-effects from another drug (Alvimopan) from another company (ADLR). There hasn't been any evidence that Relistor has the issues that Alvimopan had. There must also be a large enough data set available to solidify this conclusion from all the patients who have been treated with Relistor since its approval in 2008. Well, at least PGNX is back in the game with the announcement of the new FDA review panel. Today's announcement from SALIX stated that the FDA will seek advice from pain, gastrointestinal, safety and experts in cardiovascular experts. Just who review the sNDA application the first time?

syenfrout,

Right on target with your bring up those diametrically opposed comments by the shortstacks guy. Either he suffers from multiple personality disorder, or there is some agenda driven reason why he made behind those contradictory comments.

I hope you were able to access the manuscripts I mentioned, Neckers and Workman as well as reference 109 from that manuscript, which shows the potential issues with combining HSP90 inhibitors and HDAC inhibitors. They unambiguously support my criticisms of shortstacks. I will see if I can't quote the relevant pieces of those manuscripts later tonight or tomorrow for those without access. Still need to compile some data tonight for a brain-storming lab meeting tomorrow

{{Galaxy project produced only 2 months more of life for patient!Ridicoulus!FDA dont ever give its approval for marketing and the cash burn...}}

Actually, the target population for Galaxy 2 showed a 4 month survival benefit in the interim Galaxy 1 update at ASCO.

shortnstocke, What is especially amusing is that you made reference to a manuscript by Neckers. I looked up a recent one by Neckers & Workman in Clinical Cancer Research (2012) Jan 1, vol 18, pages 64-76, and it was very revealing. You copied VIRTUALLY your comments from that manuscript VERBATIM. Quite frankly, you are a pretender, and lack integrity. That article also points out how promising HSP90 inhibitors are, also talks about the power of HSP90 in combination therapy, which are both the exact opposite of your claims (lies). What was most amusing is that your ignorant comment regarding transposons is there, and as I said, you quoted it verbatim. My accurate assessment that any issues would arise in germ cells is also there, as HSP90 facilitates suppression of transposition, also as I said.

Those most laughable of all is when you claimed that HSP90 inhibitors in combination with chemo wouldn't work well when that claim is isn't backed by empirical clinic data. Amazingly you then proposed to used HSP90 inhibitors with HDAC inhibitors after assuring us HSP90 inhibitors won't work with chemo. Talk about being a hypocrite. I also liked reference manuscript #109, where cited evidence that HSP90 inhibitors and some HDAC inhibitors are antagonistic, that is, HSP90 inhibitors reduce the effectiveness of some HDAC inhibitors.

I have wasted far too much time on someone as vile and devoid of character as you. That ends now as I will no longer waste any more time by responding too you.

You only embarrassed yourself by lying among your many other inaccurate comments. In fact your comment now is quite childish but oh so telling. I expected this type of response from you but held out hope that you had some character and integrity, and might really be open to discussion. Sadly that hope wasn't fulfilled.

I have pointed out specific examples of your absurd comments and out right lies. One of the latter is your claim that HSPs have been in the clinic for 20 years and failed, yet you refused to correct it. The truth is the first one, 17-AAG, entered the clinic in 2005 and showed good efficacy, but fell out of favor due to toxicity issues. Your comment that HSp90 inhibitors are doomed to fail and the field "knows" is it laughable as the opposite is true.

{{Transposon inhibition? I said increases transposon mobility.}}

You really don't know much do you? Transposons are kept immobile because they are under tight inhibition. When you raise the canard that HSP90 inhibitors will increase transposon mobility, you are saying that it must reduce or relax that inhibition to allow transposition. Get is yet sherlock, or do I need to use smaller words and simplistic diagrams? As I accurately stated before, the biggest worry would be in meiosis (germline cells to make it clear to you) as transposition inhibition is crucial then and inhibition mediated by piwi RNAs.

{{You do realize that is bad dont you.}}

It is such an insignificant issue that only a desperate troll grasping at straws, like you, would raise it as the people being treated are DYING of cancer. Hey altering microtubule dynamics using docetaxel or paclitaxel is bad too. Damaging DNA using etoposides, alkylating agents, or irradiation is bad too. Inhibiting HDACs is bad too. The point is the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

As I said before, if you don't stop lying by saying HSP90 inhibitors have failed after 20 years in the clinic, if you don't recant that lie, if you don't apologize for such lies, then I won't respond to you again. It won't be a big or even a small loss to me if you don't.

{{ Lastly, the agents I suggested pairing with HSP90i are not cytotoxic chemo in the traditional sense and there's logical reasons for pairing them}}

You mocked the idea of HSP90 and chemo as being ineffective, but now you are being hypocritical for doing so in your little mind experiments. Now feel free to suggest any combination you want, presumably to dazzle us with your supposed brilliance and to cover up for your lies and mis-statements. Feel free to provide all the reasons why you think it will work if you like. Maybe the HDACi combination with HSP90 inhibitors will demonstrate the most amazing synergist interaction and show the most potent inhibition of cancer even seen, or maybe some other combination you or I can suggest will do the same. Then again, maybe your HSP90 + HDACi combination will have a minor effect, or no effect or even be toxic. The point is that it is irrelevant to SNTA now, or HSP90 inhibitors now. If such a combination enters the clinic, I will wait for the data. Now try and focus on the real world and clinical trials in progress.