What I'm seeing in research papers is that controlling post prandial BS levels decreases the amount of basal insulin needed for control. Taken together this can produce a significant reduction in A1c. A1c is a proxy for tissue damage caused by high blood sugar. Afrezza will eventually get labeled for prediabetics and gestational diabetes IMO
What we've seen the past two weeks is buyers that want shares and buy them, but nobody's actually selling. The orders have been getting filled by market makers who sell to fill the orders without borrowing. In an attempt to create liquidity necessary to deliver the purchased shares they short more. The strategy is intended to take out stops and induce profit taking. It hasn't been working. Shares have exceeded the threshhold amount of fail to deliver according to reg SHO. This has gone on for 11 settlement days, and presumably today makes 12. After 13 days on the list, sanctions kick in that prevent shorting unless there's a bona-fide borrow. The current situation is actually very bullish for the stock as witnessed by inelastic supply and demand. It remains to be seen whether the short selling restrictions will cause a squeeze. The takedown this week is supposed to discourage longs so more shares can be found without raising the price. Interpret this as meaning the stock is under accumulation, not distribution.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
That many every day for over 2 weeks now. I'd say that means it's oversold. Monday there were 35 million traded and still there weren't enough available to cover.
I'm not adept at interpreting patent issues, but the research cited in the patent in yesterday's news got my attention. The invention posits a minimum increase of 10% in dystrophin. We now know that a 10% increase from background levels of ~1% ,i.e. ~1.1% is far below the therapeutic levels required to affect muscle function. I'm reading that BMRN is not claiming that dystrophin production is the MO for improved 6mwt scores.It seems to me it would be hard to defend a patent when the embodiment doesn't do what the patent claims.
OK I've watched the arguments and read the decision (again). But I'm not totally clear on what you're saying, save for the speculation bit.
What I see is that SC found that a type 2 agreement is operant, and therefore expectation damages *can* be applied. The problem for VC is that he already found that a lump sum is too speculative, and that specific performance is out because the lats was incomplete; missing essential terms even though economic terms were definite enough to be enforceable. Further clouding the economic terms in the LATS is evidence that there was discussion of differing economic terms after the date of the term sheet.
Now he goes back and reverses himself saying a lump sum is supported by the record by way of expert testimony and a formula he devised to apply it. And yet the economic terms of the LATS provide no means for arriving at a lump sum owing to the temporal and probabilistic characteristics of the proposition.
I think what you're saying is that since there's no clear way to come to a fair and accurate way of determining what the value of the license was in 2006 using either of the two methods available under a type 2 agreement, the court can only award reliance damages.
I was a respiratory therapist for over 20 years and did hundreds if not thousands of PFT's. Not one of them was read by a pulmonologist and very few were done in a facility where any physician interpreted the tests. It's a simple procedure to get the FEV1 and there are relatively inexpensive hand held devices to do it. My opinion is that the FDA is captured by BP and the PFT label requirement is the result of competitor pressure on the board. I predict that experience will show that while some reactive bronchospasm occurs no long lasting impairment in pulmonary function will be seen with habitual use.
Possibly. I think the whole concept of what constitutes type 2 diabetes is changing. Our diet was changing dramatically at the same time we became able to measure blood sugar. It was probably much lower before the era of margarine, coka cola, high fructose corn syrup and breakfast cereal. So what is considered normal now is probably high from a historical perspective.
For someone like me with untreated FBG just over 100, a gram of metformin is keeping my FBG around 85. And it only goes up to about 125 with meals. It was probably statins that wrecked my insulin sensitivity. If you catch it early and reverse the fatty liver that causes it most people will never progress to the point they need insulin. But if doctors keep passing out statins like its candy there will be lots more prediabetics. In my case the PCP wasn't worried about my FBG of 105 until an NMR lipid profile I persuaded him to do also reported significant insulin resistance. I lost 10 pounds in the first week on metformin and my LDL is now under 140 without statins. But I also follow the diet laid out by Dr. Wolfgang Lutz in his book "Leben Ohne Brot" (life without bread).
It may turn out that the pancreas just poops out like other glands when we get old and hitting on the afrezza just keeps us healthy longer.
Monday is day 13
Rule 3210, among other things, requires participants of registered clearing agencies to take action on failures to deliver that exist for 13 consecutive settlement days in certain non-reporting securities. In addition, if the fail to deliver position is not closed out in the requisite time period, a participant of a registered clearing agency or any broker-dealer for which it clears transactions is prohibited from effecting further short sales in the particular specified security without borrowing, or entering into a bona-fide arrangement to borrow, the security until the fail to deliver position is closed out.
I believe that the same interests that tried to derail the license are behind the short attacks. This isn't just a battle over share price, it's about disrupting the market for diabetes drugs. I think the new class of SGLT2 inhibitors is causing market erosion for insulin. Afrezza poses additional risk to market share, esp with products going off patent. Apparently the stakes are high enough to risk fines over illegal trading activities.
See him and get a complete explanation about why Afrezza is not right. If he has other patients on Afrezza then place weight on his recommendation. But in either case find a specialist that has prescribed Afrezza and get a second opinion.
Apparently BMRN isn't claiming that dystrophin is produced by their drug, just that it prevents disease progression. If the patent covers exon skipping, wouldn't the method in the claim have to produce dystrophin in order to be protected by their patent?