Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 1:42 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. Message Board

simp08801 211 posts  |  Last Activity: 4 hours ago Member since: Apr 10, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • I even have my own posts on Ignore

  • Reply to

    schmiggins' absence.

    by vskomarovsky Oct 27, 2014 7:52 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 27, 2014 9:08 PM Flag

    Simp has not even tax loss sold yet

    Simp focussed on word "uncovered"

    That word had malice

    the question is, why?

    ...

  • Reply to

    FWIW thoughts on FDA notes....

    by jrrt1 Oct 28, 2014 7:29 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 28, 2014 8:05 AM Flag

    jrrt:

    the entirety of yesterday's events, if reduced to one word, would be "uncovered"

    that single word evidenced, as we in the trade like to call it, "malice aforethought"

    it is my understanding that the FDA has yet to offer a single word of explanation on that

    IMO, that one word was probably responsible for at least 50% of the market cap reduction yesterday

    did the FDA think that was a good word to use when it is encouraging the company to convince parents to do a 4th biopsy?

    something is very very very very wrong here when we see the FDA engaging in gamesmanship in its guidance

  • Reply to

    jrrt: rationale on delayed filing

    by immediatereliefxxx Oct 28, 2014 8:55 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 28, 2014 9:03 AM Flag

    so true

  • Reply to

    Sarepta's uphill battle - Part II

    by winterlion7722 Oct 29, 2014 1:49 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 29, 2014 4:21 PM Flag

    winter

    read the april fda guide

    the fda guide assumed a compromise where the fda would "appear" to acting off the P2, but in reality, would have a significant amount of new data from new trials that the ceo clearly repeatedly publicly guided at that time would be starting in july 2014

    the fda reviewers thought they would have at least 9mth to a year of data by time the 12/31 filed nda got to fda for decision in mid 2015 to Q3 2015

    but srpt blew all the trial dates by months and months since last spring's company guide

    with the way these fda underlings clearly view cg and maybe the entire company, they shoved it up his buttocks when he assumed they would keep their schedule, while he delayed ALL of his schedules to the point that they would not have most of the data they thought they would have by mid 2015

    its a mess, on both sides

    cg is not completely clean on this in my view

    and the fda folks involved are likely gunna get their own returned favor by time its all played out

    I hope that there are more job opening wherever bastings now is in the fda building

  • Reply to

    rampant

    by np32817 Oct 29, 2014 3:49 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 29, 2014 9:25 PM Flag

    Dear Johnny8778:

    I agree 100%

    simp08801 and np32817 are spelled differently

    so of course we are different people, this is obvious!

    this would be like me somehow suggesting that you, johnny8778, are the same person as giventotweet on twitter

    my dog, and I bet your dog, know those names are spelled differently

    I cannot believe how many poor spellers we have on these message boards!

    personally, I am just wunderin if the cder director is going to reconcile this mess

    cuz I am sure she is being formally asked to act fairly and clarify exactly what happened here

    and it is a mess, a big mess

  • IMO, I am not sure how the fda cder director can escape this fact in silence

    read her July 2014 public letter written as a response to the 100,000 signature effort, which contained MANY express supportive comments about Srpt

    and ask yourself this

    IF, AT ITS MAY 2014 SITE VISIT, THE FDA REVIEWERS “UNCOVERED MARKED DISCREPANCIES” IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SRPT DYSTROPHIN DATA, HOW COULD WOODCOCK POSSIBLY WRITE THAT SPECIFIC RESPONSE IN JULY?

    was she totally unaware of such "uncovered marked discrepancies"

    she will have to decide which applies:

    1. she was made to be a complete fool by her direct underlings who are still seething over bastings' being re-assigned over sprt related terrible behavior

    or

    2. she was deceitful in her July 2014 letter

    either one is bad, and DEFIES, logic, and good faith behavior

  • simp08801 by simp08801 Oct 30, 2014 11:38 AM Flag

    What is the fastest, most efficient way for the FDA to immediately remove a drug candidate from the regulatory approval train track?

    1. declare all train travel unconstitutional

    2. put Amtrak in charge of the train schedule and operations

    3. issue a statement to company on 10/25/14 that it knows (or at least should know) the involved drug company will have to make public, without advance warning, or explanation, that you have "uncovered marked discrepancies" in what is commonly assumed to be the MOST important underlying data point relating to the drug candidate

    IF the actual, God/Bud approved FACT proves to be that prior to 10/25/14, the fda reviewers never uttered a sound about their miraculous discovery, in early May 2014, to ANYBODY at the hospital or the company, then, IMO, the ramifications of this situation will dwarf those that occurred in April 2014, when bastings got "relocated" to another division

  • Reply to

    Question

    by simp08801 Oct 30, 2014 11:38 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 30, 2014 12:00 PM Flag

    this is actually much worse than the November-April situation

    that it happened once is crazy

    but twice?

    that is impossible to reconcile

    but the CEO's repeated delays in the P3 schedules set the company up for this to a degree

    even without the "uncovered marked discrepancies", he handed the FDA folks the following defendable excuse:

    "when we (FDA) told you (Srpt) we would accept an NDA filing by 2014 year end, you led us to believe that by that time, you would have all the new trials we discussed in dosing mode, for quite some time, but now, you have NONE going, after repeated delays, and we are no longer sure we can trust you will actually get them going any time soon, thus, if you can delay, so can we, and if you are looking to blame somebody for our delay, get a mirror, because you are not the only player in this game that can unilaterally change its underlying assumptions"

  • Reply to

    FDA CDER Director: July 30, 2014

    by np32817 Oct 30, 2014 11:24 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 30, 2014 1:52 PM Flag

    jrrt, outstanding on your part

  • See twitter

  • simp08801 by simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 8:12 AM Flag

    before I give my "FDA Response for Dummies" summary, it is critical to acknowledge what the FDA did NOT address ...

    the FDA did not touch, even with a word, the issue of whether anything regarding the infamous FDA words "uncovered marked discrepancies" was EVER communicated in any way, to anybody, prior to the issuance of the 10/25ish FDA minutes

    I AM CERTAIN THAT IF THE FDA HAD DONE SO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE LETTER ...

    also, and equally importantly, the FDA did not touch what those words meant, and that should be a huge signal that the CDER Director has yet to figure out WHAT THAT MEANT AND WHY IT WAS WRITTEN BY HER STAFF

    FDA IS UNCLEAN ON THIS ISSUE, AND IT KNOWS IT

    having said this, the FDA was "brilliant" in its response otherwise, as it has depicted itself as a largely ignored regulator where the applicant has simply refused to follow its clear lead, repeatedly (count how many times the words "consistent" and "consistently" were used by FDA describing how it has behaved)

    brilliant, cuz the FDA knows the applicant cannot ever come back and say the FDA is wrong about anything it said

    game set match FDA over the MUST BE NOW FIRED SRPT CEO

    now for the summary:

    1. we, the FDA will not touch any issue we are guilty on, not now, not ever, so don't hold your breath

    2. We have given the applicant clear and perfectly consistent messages on what it needs to do, and when, and the applicant has wholly failed to do same, but we, the FDA, are here for the applicant if and when it ever does same

    3. There was no applicant fraud, we admit that, but do not expect us to tell anybody exactly what we meant when we said "uncovered marked discrepancies", because frankly, that is one of our "soft spots", but we will eventually tell you after we make it up

    the summary is now completed

    my final thoughts

    THE CEO MUST GO

    IMO, he clearly has a horrific relationship with the FDA, as that letter was a thinly veiled direct attack on the applicants failures in the process

  • Reply to

    the FDA response

    by simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 8:12 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 8:30 AM Flag

    one more thing

    the FDA did learn something from its prior "mistakes" (outright lies ... remember its concern over RNA data it later had to admit it did not even have? ...)

    the FDA knew that it could not let this issue fester for longer than one day

    it got bombarded by the dmd folks, and it immediately responded

    and it knows they can't now say, hey thanks, but we need you to do another response and say more stuff we want to hear

    the FDA effectively snuffed the issue, right quick

    and all that is now left is the thought that the company has largely failed to honor the regulator's request, but that notwithstanding, the regulator is prepared to act quickly, if the company every gets its own act together

    it was, brilliant

    and the FDA knows the Srpt BOD cannot now issue its own attack on the FDA for the FDA's soft spots

    everybody got snuffed

    there is only one thing the Srpt BOD can now do that matters

    FIND SENIOR PEOPLE TO BRING IN WHO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS AT FDA

    that would be worth its weight in gold, especially after that FDA letter

  • Reply to

    Don't blame CG fo this debacle!

    by teeth_4444 Oct 31, 2014 8:33 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 8:40 AM Flag

    teeth

    its not about "blame" or "right and wrong"

    its about reality

    clear your head and ask yourself the following question

    DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE FDA WOULD ISSUE THAT RESPONSE IF HE HAD ANY MEANINGFUL, POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CEO?

    I say of course not

    The FDA skewered him

    the company can never win this "war" with the FDA

    IMO, it must show faces to faces to the FDA that are new to Srpt, but not new to the FDA

    and its bigger than that, the CEO's decision to take Mendell and his hospital over Hoffman and his hospital could turn out to be the biggest mistake of them all

    where would Srpt be right now, if Hoffman was the chief trial investigator?

    life is not fair

    and it appears huge mistakes were made here by the CEO

  • I saved money with geico

  • I saved money with geico

  • Reply to

    What's holding up the 4th biopsy results?

    by teeth_4444 Oct 31, 2014 9:23 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 9:30 AM Flag

    they are tied to the "168 week" walk tests as to timing, which has now made those tests "168 to 173 week" tests

    we will not see anything on those biopsies until early 2015

    CG knew the fda wanted this 10 (TEN) months ago

    ...

  • Reply to

    A skeleton walks into a bar

    by onintwo18 Oct 31, 2014 9:50 AM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 10:15 AM Flag

    I am still looking for your mug on the Foo Fighters HBO show

  • Reply to

    2 things from the letter

    by thigrlsrk Oct 31, 2014 7:28 PM
    simp08801 simp08801 Oct 31, 2014 8:35 PM Flag

    gri

    all objective observers know why

    THE FDA REVIEWERS ENGAGED IN BIASED BAD BEHAVIOR, perhaps because they say their friend bastings get his career whacked over a company attempting to AA on an n=10

    but the management's repeated delays in P3 and other progress since April handed them the perfect "good government excuse"

    and they waited for the perfect moment and cashed that chip in

    which chip was designed, manufactured and delivered, in a perfect wrapper, to the FDA by the Srpt CEO

    IMO, I do not see how he can survive it, in terms of remaining the lead architect and face person on future FDA dealings

    the company needs to spend BIG and FAST on a known gray hair who the FDA knows and respects

    and if that person comes in and determines that certain underlings need to be replaced, the CEO cannot be allowed to interfere

    we have chose to ignore it, but the CEO has now hired 3 very senior people, drowned them in options, and paid them well, which normally engenders loyalty

    but in his case

    two abruptly left without fanfare after less than a year

    and the other tried to have him killed

    THEY WERE HIS HIRES

    he cannot be near the FDA, starting now

    surely that FDA response was written at least in part by the CDER director

    and it is alleged she is essentially his ONLY fda friend

    and that response was still sent in the form of a direct swipe at him

    there must be immediate change

    I will be very worried if there is none, in terms of future prospects

  • As of now

    Only 4 are recruiting

    Today is November 1

    Compare this to ceo's latest delayed guide on new trial start dates

    The signals were there

    He said they were recruiting a while back

    But the trials were not even yet posted when he said it

    He appears to have been leading with his tongue when he first said they were recruiting

    ...

SRPT
12.18-0.05(-0.37%)Jan 23 3:59 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.