Recent

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

BIOLASE, Inc. Message Board

simonig 6 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 26, 2016 12:33 PM Member since: Mar 29, 1998
  • simonig simonig Apr 26, 2016 12:33 PM Flag

    Evidently, the FDA has a very weak Neurology Team incapable of understanding new technologies such as Metal Protein Attenuation Compounds (MPAC)!! The FDA needs to bring in new Neurologists and strengthen the team!! I hope Ms. Woodcock is attending to this. The patients are suffering!!

  • simonig simonig Mar 22, 2016 2:00 PM Flag

    Hi long_ranger213,
    What makes you think that Copper is not a prisoner with a lot of time on her/his hands and thus finds this bashing an easy (if not the only) way to make some change while in prison?

  • Reply to

    How Relevant is a small dog trial to test a drug?

    by simonig Mar 20, 2016 1:56 PM
    simonig simonig Mar 20, 2016 2:28 PM Flag

    Hi Bob,
    I believe this class of drugs is toxic to dogs specifically. Check my post on InvestorsVillage on the PRAN message board post number 843.

    Best Regards,
    Simon

  • Given that there has been a substantial amount of testing with mice and in humans, I don't see how the testing in a few dogs is all that relevant. My first question is: How many dogs were tested? Is the answer 10 dogs, 20 dogs, 30 dogs? It is highly unlikely that more dogs have been tested than humans. Also note that there are things that are toxic to dogs and not at all toxic to humans. One example of a toxic substance to dogs is chocolate. Chocolate is extremely toxic to dogs (Kills dogs) but billions of humans have eaten chocolate without any bad effects. Given that the toxicity in dogs showed up in a very small trial (few dogs in trial), I would think that the most likely explanation is that there is a distinct difference in the reaction to the drug between dogs and humans. (Note that the dietary requirements of dogs is SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT from that of humans. The dietary requirements of mice is much closer to that of humans.) Note that no such toxicity was ever seen in mice (or rats) where many more mice experiments were done and the much higher numbers carry much more relevance. At best, the FDA is using the PCH as a "cover your #$%$ tactic and at worst it is using the PCH as a delay tactic to allow other drug companies to narrow the lead Prana has over the competition in order to allow more drugs to get through trials and hit the market. After all, what patient would want to go through a drug trial if a good drug already exists on the market? This is IMHO.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Near-Term Prospects

    by simonig Feb 9, 2016 12:14 PM
    simonig simonig Mar 3, 2016 12:54 PM Flag

    Let's keep the posts with relevant information from getting buried by the maggots' effort to engage the good posters and flood this board with lies and drivel. Please don't feed the maggots with their multiple IDs.

  • Reply to

    Near-Term Prospects

    by simonig Feb 9, 2016 12:14 PM
    simonig simonig Feb 28, 2016 8:24 PM Flag

    Hi Kad,
    PRAN's Pbt2 is the only drug that reduces A-Beta deposits and prevents Tau Tangles from forming. It will be a Godsend to patients suffering from neuro-degenerative diseases. It is a shame that the FDA has delayed the start of the phase 3 trial by over a year with this bogus PCH based on old Dog studies which used very high doses when we have up to two years worth of data in Human studies. However, based on PRAN's AGM and the recent half yearly report, I am assuming we are close and the the package that is being prepared for the FDA will soon be handed to them. A little more patience is required IMHO.

    Best Regards,

    Simon

BIOL
1.20+0.01(+0.84%)12:30 PMEDT