Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. Message Board

dr.vinmantoo 108 posts  |  Last Activity: 13 hours ago Member since: May 18, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 7, 2016 1:45 AM Flag

    poor lucy can't handle the truth.

    {{They do have an agenda for being here, other then the fact they are not allowed to post their lies on IH.}}

    My agenda is to counter lies, whether by pumpers or bashers. I haven't posted a single lie here or on IHub. The pumpers posts in their panic invent even more absurd lies each day.

    {{I say we expose them for who they are, right learningcurve a la stoneroad. And Johnson (sick) you better get yourself some high complex carbs in you kid. I'll volunteer to send you some rice and Idaho potato, you know goat food. Anyway, while we wait for the legal work to settle they, (the bullies) know we, (the real sh holders) will remain range bound. An ongoing investigation is going to do that to the sp every time, again they know this.}}

    Lucy, you have only succeeded in exposing yourself as a hysterical fool.

    {{The company can not and will not comment or divulge anything that concerns the investigation. That would literally jeopardize it.}}

    What investigation? The Sunrise trial is dead. Are you talking about the laughable delusion that big pharma has conspired to sabotage the Bavi phase II and phase III trails?? PPHM could be bought for a rounding error in their budgets but the pumpers want everyone to believe they would risk sabotaging a drug that has repeatadly failed in trials.

    {{Regardless Dr. Garnett WILL speak when his time comes and will silence the naysayers forever!
    So be our guest, post your insults and your LOL's but remember, the last laugh will be on you.}}

    Garnick can talk all he wants but Sunrise is dead, dead, DEAD. The most likely thing that will happen is that Garnick will leave PPHM, and soon. I will continue to post the truth and continue to insult pumpers who lie, or critics who lie. There is a lot of laughing going on, and all of it at your expense.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 7, 2016 1:33 AM Flag

    Yes I have an agenda, I hate pumping liars just as much as I have lying shorts. Coolhandlucy seems incapable of facing reality. The comments by the so called bashers have been accurate. The comments by longs (lying pumpers) have been complete nonsense. I haven't posted a single lie or anything that isn't consistent with FDA policy.

    This is the reality. Sunrise is dead. It was stopped at the first futility analysis. The lying pumpers are saying the control arm had better survival than any control arm in history, which is absolute nonsense and a lie since they haven't see the data. Moreover, it is completely irrelevant even if it were true. Sunrise was a controlled trial and the control arm is the the reference point for assessing whether Bavi was effective. The FDA will not drop the control arm, as some lying pumpers post, to enable Bavi to get FDA approval fro Sunrise. That comment is possibly one of the stupidest comments I have ever run across. I like to read the IHub board for laughs and I wasn't disappointed today. laughs. Another lying pumper actually said the data from pre-clinical trials, phase I, the corrupted phase II and the failed phase III will be pooled to get FDA approval for Bavi in NSCLC. You just can't make up stupid like that.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 6, 2016 10:41 PM Flag

    You need to wake up. I am and many others you call bashers are posting cold hard facts but you can't seem to handle that so you lash out. The longs are either deliberately lying or they are merely willfully ignorant.

    The longs keep pushing the absurd idea that Sunrise can get approved with the data they have generated. Some longs seem to think they can argue their way out of the stopping of Sunrise, as if the trial was a debating contest. The trial rules are simple and were a laid out by PPHM and the FDA allowed the trial to proceed. The trial was stopped at the earlist possible time based on a look at the data. End of story.

    I find it astonishing that some longs are trying to dismiss the control arm and even suggest that the FDA should or even could use some historical control to declare Bavi+DOC in the Sunrise trial as a success and then approve BAVI. There are controlled trials and there uncontrolled (single) arm trials. Both have their uses but you CANNOT run a controlled trial and then decide you don't like the control arm data so convert the trial into a single arm trial then expect approval.

    As I said above, you need to wake up. I am and many others you call bashers are posting cold hard facts but you can't seem to handle that so you lash out. The longs are either deliberately lying or they are merely willfully ignorant.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 6, 2016 4:17 PM Flag

    Cloaked Protector is a clueless moron. That is bad enough, but he is dangerous because he spots absolute nonsense repeatedly and with such confidence that he might sucker people into thinking PPHM is a good investment. That would be people who know even less than he does about oncology and the FDA than he does.

  • Exwannabe wrote this

    {{The SUNRISE trial took a group of similar people being treated under the then SOC. They gave half of them Bavi. Those receiving Bavi were not living longer than those who did.

    What is so complicated?

    The purpose of a trial such as this is to show that those who get the drug do better than those who do not. And in this SUNRISE failed.

    Nobody cares what the MOS of a single arm is. And certainly not the FDA.}}

    I responded with this post, which apparently the IHub moderators found this too close to the truth for them to stomach.

    {{ exwannabe, exactly on target. Some people here seem to think they can argue their way out of the stopping of Sunrise, as if the trial was a debating contest. The trial rules are simple and were a laid out by PPHM and the FDA allowed the trial to proceed. The trial was stopped at the earlist possible time based on a look at the data. End of story.

    I find it astonishing to me that some people are trying to dismiss the control arm and even suggest that the FDA should or even could use some historical control to declare Bavi+DOC in the Sunrise trial as a success and then approve BAVI. There are controlled trials and there uncontrolled (single) arm trials. Both have their uses but you CANNOT run a controlled trial and then decide you don't like the control arm data so convert the trial into a single arm trial then expect approval. Stop spreading such nonsense which perhaps even verges on fraud. Please stop it. }}

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 6, 2016 4:11 AM Flag

    This is another of my posts that was recently deleted, supposedly off topic for being off topic. This one I made after Hornet mocked someone claiming to have an IQ of 165.

    Hornet wrote"

    {{No links, no proof, no published verifiable data about some supposed "IQ test" score of 165 (LOL !) that would be in the certifiable "genius" range = PURE BS to me. Made up from the thin air. The ole test was supposedly "analog", LOL !! Right on. Got it???

    Simple as that from my perspective. Tall tales with no facts to back um up as far as I'm concerned. I'm not "wrong" about a thing.

    Total nonsense to me.}}

    I responded with

    {{Hornet, you mean like claims that Sunrise didn't fail because Bavi performed as expected?

    Do you mean claims like that Sunrise didn't fail because the control arm performed better than any control arm in history?

    This should be the board motto

    wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro }}

    I put the word "DOT" in place of the periods because yahoo doean't allow links

  • This one was removed by administrators because it was supposedly off topic. North40000 posts some #$%$ about the FDA changing its ways, and the cancer moonshot, both of which he touted as being reasons why Sunrise and PPHM are good bets. It was laughable.

    North40000 wrote.

    {{The thesis seems to be that old ways will not work in days of quick tele-communication and project moonshots of various sorts that might not ever get to the moon otherwise in a reasonable lifetime. }}

    I responded with.

    I understand all too well about publishing and the time it take for manuscripts to get reviewed and ultimately accepted. My most recent manuscript that was just published in December and it took about 3-4 months for reviews and modifications. I was just on the other end and submitted my comments on a manuscript that somene else submitted. Yes things are changing, and I like journals which have open comments linked to their published manuscripts so that public discussions of the paper can ensue. Yes more communication and rapid submission for data is a nice idea, but that it won't go anywhere without safeguards for those who do submit early and publicly.

    However, none of that has to do with the FDA and especially not with Sunrise. I am not sure why so many people are looking that the "moonshot" as some Holy Grail. You want more rapid progress, then stop treating graduate students and post-doctoral researchers as endentured servants. The need more money and more security, as do principal investigators doing research. I can tell you more abot it later.

    I also don't appreciate the high frequency at which my posts are deleted. It is also counterproductive. One thing any good scientist learns early is that you need data that contradicts your hypotheses, and often learn more from being wrong than when data supports your views.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 5, 2016 8:20 PM Flag

    I haven't bothered to contest any of the many posts the moderators deleted there. I do like the idea of putting the same posts here and on Ihub so they can't suppress reality.

  • Reply to

    ...20 mm gunnery technology...

    by antwan_rockamoora Apr 5, 2016 12:06 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 5, 2016 12:26 PM Flag

    I liked Hornet's comparing the "I haven't lost any money because I haven't sold" mantra of PPHM longs to quantum physics and Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. As long as you don't look at your portfolio statement, you haven't lost money. Of course that means you haven't made money since both losing money and making money are simultaneously possible. Too bad for PPHM longs that in stock market investing you have to deal with the macro world not in the quantum world.

  • Reply to

    PDUFA date delayed

    by cre8profit Apr 4, 2016 7:11 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 5, 2016 12:07 AM Flag

    Pgnxalxn, are you sure about animal testing? That makes no sense to me as Relistor is already approved. The change to an Oral formulation would seem to be about efficacy.

  • Reply to

    PDUFA date delayed

    by cre8profit Apr 4, 2016 7:11 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 4, 2016 3:51 PM Flag

    Iba40 that is certainly possible, but I am with ca_fisherman, the delay worries me.

  • Reply to

    PDUFA date delayed

    by cre8profit Apr 4, 2016 7:11 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 4, 2016 1:47 PM Flag

    Cre8, I doubt that an extra 3 months will affect the size of the Oral Relistor market. Let's hope it is only 3 months. As far as thinking Valeant has done something fishy, PGNX needs to be hounding them for information. I wonder if there is a legal avenue for PGNX to pursue if Valeant isn't forthcoming.

  • Reply to

    Thought on this stock

    by jjr62888 Apr 1, 2016 1:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 4, 2016 1:00 PM Flag

    penny, don't you need to have owned PGNX in order to have sold it? What signs are you talking about?

  • Reply to

    This Oral Relistor delay is very fishy.

    by yazzbro Apr 4, 2016 10:00 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 4, 2016 12:58 PM Flag

    PGNX didn't drop much (yet?) because it didn't run up as the PDUFA neared. You can't blame AZN. Valeant has been under such a #$%$ storm that it isn't hard to believe they might not have done their job properly in submission. The data for the Oral formulation sure looked good, but I sure don't like a delay. It could be an issue with the way the application was submitted but we count out that some data was missing or something troubling cropped up. As usual, it is wait, and then wait some more for Relistor. Aarrrghh!

  • Reply to

    Thought on this stock

    by jjr62888 Apr 1, 2016 1:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 2, 2016 11:32 PM Flag

    turtle, you are one condescending little jerk. Right, you claim to have made lot of money trading stocks. So you are another one of these message board millionaires who can't provide any evidence to support it. Of course none of that is relevant to PGNX. I have made no predictions about PGNX other than Oral Relistor will be approved and revenues will go up, and go up significantly. This apparently upsets you so much that you lash out with name calling. What many other biotechs have done is irrelevant, we are talking about PGNX. Since you know nothing at all about PGNX, I do understand why you would change the subject to other companies.

    So, are you worried because you are short? By short I am referring to PGNX stock, but that fits you being short of brains as you pontificate here without knowing anything about PGNX. Analyst's sales estimates about Relistor are like analysts' price targets, meaningless.

  • Reply to

    Thought on this stock

    by jjr62888 Apr 1, 2016 1:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 2, 2016 6:47 PM Flag

    What are you babbling about? PGNX is at $4 plus and their cash generator is Relistor. Sales of its subcutaneous form are growing but the market is so much bigger for an oral formulation. That will soon get approved. It isn't rocket science and you successes with ENTA are irrelevant here and don't make you an expert here.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 2, 2016 1:04 PM Flag

    Below is what I posted on the Ihub PPHM but it was quickly deleted. Can the moderators can be sued for fraud or for being a boiler room type operation? They allow or post delusions and outright lies as long as they tout PPHM's prospects. In contrast, any facts which counter that scenario are deleted.

    {{If the Bavi arm has an MOS of 14 months or better from the body of the fully blinded data that was available in February 2016, Garnick just might be able to get Bavi plus Doce FDA approved. }}

    You have to be kidding. This isn't a debating club where you can make brilliant or emotionally moving points to come away a winner. The NSCLC phase III trial of Bavi+DOC vs DOC has been stopped for futility and it is dead. I will repeat because it seems some people can't handle reality. Bavi + Doc failed in the phase III trial. The drug combination failed and the trial failed. PPHM has nothing to bring to the FDA for approval, and will never have anything to go to the FDA for approval based on Sunrise.

    Sure PPHM can look over the data and desperately look for any sub-group that might have seemed to benefit. They can think about starting a NEW trial to test whether such a correlation, if it exists, is more than a correlation. They will have to convince the FDA to allow it, which depends on there not being safety issues arising in Sunrise. Of course they will need to scrape up the money for a new trial but PPHM doesn't have the money for anything more than maybe a small phase II trial. Even if they do all that, it might take a year to start it.

    PPHM management is horrid. I stated on this board after it was revealed that the small NSCLC trials was corrupted and had significant numbers of dropouts/lost patients, that the prudent move would have been to rerun the phase II using a larger number of patients. Instead PPHM was reckless and moved into a large phase III trial without either solid data to base in on or a partner to help finance it.

  • Reply to

    Thought on this stock

    by jjr62888 Apr 1, 2016 1:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 2, 2016 12:57 PM Flag

    pennyvulture, You are clueless if you think revenues will be flat after approval of the Relistor oral formulation. Any analyst who said that revenues will be flat after approval of the Relistor oral formulation is also clueless. Seriously pennyvulture, do you know ANYTHING about PGNX or Relistor?

  • Reply to

    Thought on this stock

    by jjr62888 Apr 1, 2016 1:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 1, 2016 6:51 PM Flag

    The oral formulation will be approved. What are you talking about?

  • Reply to

    Hilarious to see

    by brad_pitts_betterlooking_brother Mar 31, 2016 12:00 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Mar 31, 2016 8:34 PM Flag

    I am sure my post will be deleted from Ihub. Just remove the "xx" and put in the "tt" for the link.

    {{My personal preference is know, all deals with NO PERMANENT encumbering of the pipelines (IP will not be encumbered IMO) will do. I prefer a slightly slower move (1 Year) then a fast poor panic deal because there is no reason for panic.}}

    Right, CP, right, all is well.

    hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDT_IBk7hAA

MNTA
11.14+0.24(+2.20%)May 27 4:00 PMEDT