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

Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (AEGR) Message Board

hankmanoo 22 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 23, 2016 11:46 PM Member since: Apr 16, 2013
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • hankmanoo hankmanoo Jun 23, 2016 11:46 PM Flag

    Except for gold!

  • What do you think the effect of Brexit will be on CLF if EXIT wins?

  • Reply to

    Part 1: Why is CUR so low?

    by hankmanoo Jun 16, 2016 8:59 AM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo Jun 16, 2016 9:50 AM Flag

    There were more parts that I posted with the rest of the quotes but (terrible) Yahoo gobbled them up and did not allow the posts.

  • confidence limit, compared to the ProAct database. ALSFRSr scores correlated most strongly with FVC preservation, which was the target of the cervical injections. For grip strength control, researchers used the Ceftriaxone (CEF) study database, since grip strength data was not available in the ProAct database. 67% of Phase I and II combined, and 60% of Phase II patients, all at nine months post-intervention, fell above the 95% upper confidence limit.

    From Feuerstein article:

    On the more interesting secondary efficacy endpoints, Neuralstem says seven of the 15 patients, or 47%, responded to the stem cell therapy when they were assessed nine months after surgery. Response is defined as a slowing or improvement in the slope of the ALSFRS score over the nine months. ALSFRS measures muscle function in ALS studies, so a flattening or positive slope means patients are stabilizing or improving.

    The average ALSFRS score for responders at nine months after treatment was 37 and these patients retained 93% of their baseline ALSFRS score, Neuralstem says.

    The remaining eight ALS patients in the study did not respond to NSI-566 therapy. After nine months, their average ALSFRS score was 14, which represents just 35% retention of their baseline scores, the company says.

    If we do some simple math, the baseline ALSFRS scores for responders and non-responders was 40, which is in line with other ALS studies.

    Here's Neuralstem's conclusion: "As measured by an average slope of decline of ALSFRS, responders' disease progression was -0.007 point per day, while non-responders' disease progression was -0.1 per day, which was again statistically significant."

    Responders benefited more than non-responders. Thanks, Neuralstem, but this analysis is not very helpful because the company can't identify patients who will respond to NSI-566 before they undergo the extensive surgical surgery required to transplant the stem cells into the spine.

    If you can't preselect responding patients, it's

  • I used to hold some CUR in my portfolio but sold it a long time ago. I have now returned to have another look at CUR and am puzzled. I find the share price much much lower, the CUR website still talks about a seemingly good result for PII in the 566 trial whereas all the commentary Feuerstein and others see a failure with a acceleration of the disease in many of the patients whereas the CUR website says explicitly that there was no acceleration. I quote both below and note that the market does not seem to believe CUR – witness the low SP. Could someone explain to me what is happening here? Here are the quotes:

    From the current CUR website:
    Neuralstem ALS Trials
    Neuralstem concluded final surgeries in the company’s NSI-566/ALS Phase II trial, primarily evaluating safety, in July 2014. After a six month patient follow-up period, this phase of the study concluded in the first quarter of 2015. A larger, controlled, registration directed NSI-566/ALS clinical trial is expected to commence in 2016.

    Nine-month Phase II and combined Phase I/II NSI-566 ALS data was presented at the American Neurological Association Annual Meeting by Dr. Feldman, in September 2015. The data showed that the intraspinal transplantation of the cells was safe and well-tolerated throughout the escalating doses, reaching a maximum tolerated dose of 16 million cells via 20 bilateral injections. Further, there appeared to be no acceleration in disease progression due to the therapeutic intervention.

    Researchers calculated a 95% confidence limit around the slopes of decline of ALSFRSr scores, forced vital capacity (FVC) and grip strength of the ProAct historical database subjects, and evaluated if trial subjects fell within or outside those limits. 73% of Phase II patients, and 79% of combined Phase I and II patients, fell above the upper confidence limit of the ALSFRSr score. 50% of Phase I and II combined, and 40% of Phase II patients' forced vital capacity percent predicted fell above the upper

  • What is the current status of the bankruptcy in Canada? Has anything happened in the last few months?

  • Reply to

    Interesting slide from ASCO

    by james_5050 Jun 6, 2016 12:34 PM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo Jun 6, 2016 7:36 PM Flag

    Where can I find this interesting slide from ASCO? Can you supply a link?

  • Reply to


    by hankmanoo Jun 3, 2016 10:43 AM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo Jun 3, 2016 11:40 AM Flag

    Yup, I saw the NR on Fardis, but could not imagine she was worth about $2.50 a share increase - that is about a 50% increase in share value - so I was looking for some other piece of info to explain it. So I am still puzzled?

  • hankmanoo by hankmanoo Jun 3, 2016 10:43 AM Flag

    I held some LBIO some time ago and check in to see how it is doing every once in a while as I still think it may have some possibility. Today however i am puzzled and probably missing some piece of info. could someone please striagten me out or fill me in.

    While the news today reads ablout a large about $100M financing at about $4.75 per share, nevertheless todays price on Yahoo is at $7.10 - up $1.08 - as I write. That is a huge mismatch as usually the market price goes to about the cost of the new financing unless there is some very specific great news. what am I missing????

  • Reply to

    OK. What's Happening?

    by matthewperry578 May 24, 2016 10:24 AM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo May 24, 2016 10:27 AM Flag

    On volume of about 110,000 shares for that trade during the spike.

  • I assumed that given the current disfavor of this stock that if I placed a large limit order for stock at the market that it would get filled very quickly. As it turned out, I found it very difficult and required much effort on my part and many hours at the keyboard to get the order filled in drips and drabs. what ever bid I placed a second later (some computer program?) the bid was raised by .001 above my bid and I got no shares or very few even though I was matching the current ask. It took a lot of time and effort to veeeery slowly fill my order that I thought would fill very rapidly as sellers rushed for the exit. There may be hope yet.

  • Reply to

    Three partnerships..what it means.

    by monarch6500 May 2, 2016 11:16 PM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo May 3, 2016 9:16 AM Flag

    I am a long time LONG, but I must agree with you Jerry (does not happen often). This is a pretty cynical NR and was only released to cover the real news here about the problems for shares issued to Cognate that HAD to be revealed. So SILENT Linda had to put forward some sugar "to make the medicine go down" so she put out this half baked and mysterious "deals" which are not final and may never be with unnamed parties, and rebaked old news on the numbers from PI and unfortunately the truth that the screening hold was ongoing. Note also that the goods news could have been that in the HE negotiations the parties have a conceptual agreement - so clearly they are not even that far along with HE. I am beginning to wonder if they are still talking? This hit close to home - at stocks issued to Cognate - so she had to put out a NR. To bad she does think as much about the interests of her shareholders. Little wonder the stock has eroded so much.

    Bottom line, I still hope the science is good - but am beginning to fear that the stock is not!! We need total transparency! Anything less than that will be - far too little, far too late. I suspect that both Woody and I are sorry we ever invested with Linda.

  • What happened to the LNCGY ADR after the March 9 resverse 1:6 split? EOM

  • Reply to


    by iceman18047 Apr 8, 2016 7:40 AM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 8, 2016 8:42 AM Flag

    Go home with your tripe. You are not scaring any longs with your meaningless drivel!

  • hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 8, 2016 8:41 AM Flag

    Go home and stay there. You add nothing to this discussion as you grind on and on with mere assertions.

  • hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 8, 2016 8:38 AM Flag

    Go home. I hope your ice is melting as NWBO goes up and you lose a lot of money on your shorts.

  • hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 7, 2016 10:46 AM Flag

    Actually, He DOES mention NWBO by name. He said a deal was in the works with big pharma (MRK and BMY) and NWBO.

  • Reply to

    If NWBO trades $1.90, I will add.

    by greatdayisback2013 Apr 7, 2016 10:09 AM
    hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 7, 2016 10:34 AM Flag

    Finally, something about NWBO. Not that I carewhether you add or not, but what is special about $1.90?

  • hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 6, 2016 10:11 AM Flag

    Get lost!!!! This is the NWBO BB not CERS!!!

  • hankmanoo hankmanoo Apr 5, 2016 9:18 AM Flag

    Yes, the separation protects a "part of the equation" in Cognate's hands - BUT that protection is all to the benefit of LP and NOT AT ALL for the benefit of NWBO shareholders if NWBO goes bust and Cognate remains standing.

1.41-0.13(-8.44%)Jun 27 4:00 PMEDT