I'm not suggesting the letter is going to change the FDA's minds, but frankly, it's insulting to suggest these blogs are "what got most of us in the hole." If you invested here solely based on a blog, sorry, that's on you. Without the parents and their blogs and other news stories, SRPT would have never even had a shot at early approval in the first place. If you need to be mad at someone, be made at the FDA or yourself.
I'm not sure who's more obnoxious: you or jonkelly.
Thanks for sharing. Can you imagine what the board would look like if everybody shared their successful trades? It would be crazy awesome, because we all care about how much somebody else is making.
Well, I think some of them do. For those who've posted about writing to the FDA, you'll see many likes and retweets by parents.
I do agree that the shareholders have done a tremendous amount, and I hope they continue to do so, along with the parents.
There are actually three others that I know of as seen on twitter:
I'd wager most parents actually do give a #$%$. It's just that most people in general would often feel hopeless in a situation like this, and as a result, not know how to respond.
I wouldn't either, and I think the post-hoc analysis of P3 will show that many boys on the cusp of decline who were able to tolerate the drug stabilized or improved. (And I think this is exactly why GSK is taking it's sweet time crunching the numbers.) This being said, the toxicity of drisapersen makes eteplirsen the clear winner in the DMD race, even if drisapersen does eventually make it to market.
Well, so long as they get things resolved pronto, I don't care how many meetings they have this month. My trading account can recover. Boys with DMD can't.
"those meetings" - I think Chris was simply referring to any meetings they've ever had and will have with the FDA. I don't think he was insinuating there was more than one scheduled this month.
I think most of us know why. I'd wager even the FDA knows why.
Excellent question, Jim. One would think that, yes, it should be enough to prove, particularly if you use cancer trials as a parameter. Plenty of cancer drugs are effective on a very small percentage of a particular population, but because that is all that is available, they are approved.
Pretty succinct summary. The FDA's actions were truly shameful. Had they just denied AA from the get go, I imagine P3 could have started much sooner. But now the boys have to wait another several months thanks to the FDA. Wonder how many will lose ambulation (or worse) in that time. Truly despicable.
Well, I hope you're right and that a final design was in fact agreed to. The company could use a little good news at this point. If no agreement, that means delay, and I'd imagine the stock price will take a hit.
Um, the P3 results are far more likely to bomb than they are to be good.
Given that the RSI is well below 30 and has been for a few days, I doubt the stock is going to drop much further, barring negative news, and within the next few weeks, it will breach and stay above $15. It'll likely get to the 40s on the daily RSI before heading back down, but by then, it will have likely found a bottom. Again, this is barring any further bad news, in which case, all bets are off. (I would consider any further delays to P3 bad news, and that is the biggest thing to worry about right now.)
Right. Because only big orders like that occur when a buyout is about to happen. I'm sure all of the officers who purchased stock in the $30s (and those who sold for a loss due to margin calls) would totally sign off on that.
Uh huh. GSK hated SRPT so much that they decided to spend money on a drug that they knew would fail just so they could impede SRPT several years down the road. Got it. I suggest looking for a book publisher ASAP because this has best seller written all over it.
I think it's more likely that GSK really started putting the screws to SRPT once they first saw the topline data from P3 (which was well before the rest of us). GSK would never have invested in Prosensa's platform if they knew from the get go that it would be utter #$%$ or significantly inferior to eteplirsen. GSK company is sleazy and diabolical--no argument there--but they aren't stupid.