As I've stated before, the worldwide market just for vaccinations is something like 80 billion!! I believe that the Technosphere delivery system would be ideal for that because there is ZERO chance of a needle stick causing an infection, the inoculation would be more like how people catch a disease anyways- it would seem to be a very efficient way to vaccinate!
This is such a great piece of writing- Tsunami #1 actually traded 98 million shares. #2 and #3 ought to clean out the rest of them!!
I wanted to try copying and pasting on this message board, just because, well, I don't know!!!!
wrawkit • Feb 22, 2014 10:59 PM Remove
users liked this posts
users disliked this posts
You continue to think you "proved" something by selling MNKD stock when the trial results were released, and continue to think that since the stock dropped a lot after you sold it, that PROVES that you were right-
therefore, your continued gloating..... Guess what master rapp trader- More often than not, even when speculative biotechs do get their first drug approved by the fda, the stock typically DROPS on the announcement, because there is no more news to propel the stock higher, and they haven't made money yet!!
Basically you got a "bet" right, for the wrong reason- the stock drop WAS NOT some sort of vote by the market on the quality of the results, despite your repeated insistence to the contrary. I hope you really load the boat this time and short it for everything you have. You're just the kind of smart guy that thinks you can do no wrong now, because you are oh so much smarter than Al and the FDA and other bright people that have looked at the data, that I think you really really need to make the bet that you should logically make- I want
you to do it, because smart guys like you need to lose it all, because that's all that will ever make you stop
your endless recycling of your Pravda/half truth spin down wizardry-
Bye Bye!! on iggy you go! Less
Sounds kinda like that movie (Green Mile?) where the sicko prison rapist finally gets it from the prison guards?
They might scatter for an hour or 2, but the way those spooks work, no matter how way off wrong their predictions were previous to approval, they will say "see I told you so". The spooks just gotta be right, gotta have the last word, gotta b!cht about anything and everything that somehow makes them look good (at least in their own mind) at everybody elses expense.
Naked shorting IS illegal, no if ands or buts. The problem comes trying to enforce this. My simple solution is to simply equate delivery fails with naked shorting, instead of allowing these naked shorts to find shares after being sold. Any delivery fail should be fined, as in this day and age, there is absolutely no reason at all that shares can't be located for loan for shorting. It also ought to be against the law to fix the delivery fail by writing new options, as it is clear that it is way too simple to game the system as it stands.
If you've read the entire document, as I have (twice!) and you find yourself wavering, like I have, because of the "fog" of the data- Ask yourself this one question: What would happen to ADCOM and the FDA if they said:
"Despite meeting the primary endpoints in both studies, we are going to deny approval of Afrezza"
I think a bunch of heads would roll.
It wouldn't surprise me- that outfit is a true piece of work- you can find headlines about what they say all over the net- It sure seems like they get it wrong a lot- I remember loading up on cldx when it was 3.00 stock and
started it's big rise- I cant remember when summer street offered their stupid opinion about it, but it seems to me it was in the 6-8 range at the time. I laughed it off, and put them in the same category as A.F., who was also way wrong about them also. I bailed at 25!
Shareholders like you gotta have some serious brass kahuna's and guts for toughing it out all this time- Here's hoping the third time is the charm!!
My full disclosure- I own 12000 shares of mnkd in an ira, my average price is a heck of a lot lower than shorty's can ever hope to drop this before the gig is up at adcom. I don't CARE what happens to the price,
because I'm not on margin, and I don't have any stops set-up. This is a HUGE bet for me, as I'm small time retail. I've hunted all over the web for the past year trying to find scarey bad data for Afrezza- IT IS NOT THERE!
Severe hypo's are the numbers that insurer's care about, because those are the ones that they have to pay out for. Injected insulin fares at least 28% worse, and if all diabetics had to hit the same A1c targets that the
injected group did in 171, did, then they should be expected to have a "severe" hypo rate more like what was seen in 171- in other words, 8.5%, a 66% increase. Presumably, the lower "severe" hypo's in the other study
that found 7.1-7.2% were a result of the more common dosing strategy of leaving A1c levels a little high for safety.
In the 171 study, the rate of severe hypos for the Afrezza group was 4.8%, for the injected group it was 8.5%-
Mannkind labeled the differences here as being "insignificant". Also, in the 175 study, the Afrezza group had
a "severe" hypo rate of 5.1%. Also, in a study that I found simply by typing the search words severe hypoglycemia rates, I found a study that listed a severe hypo rate of 7.1% for type 1's and 7.2% for type 2's
both were injected groups on insulin, and if I recall, the numbers were 160 in each group. Find it yourself if interested, it had nothing to do with Mannkind. Since the assertion has been that the type 1's didn't have enough hypos because of a slight difference in A1c's, lets just throw that rate out the window, and assume that the "real" rate is 5.1% like it was for the type 2"s, and let's just throw the 8.5% severe hypo rate for the aspart group in the 171 study out the window also, and use the lower rate that I found for the injected group,
giving the injected group the benefit of the doubt, and making Afrezza look as bad as possible- so the injected group now has a 7.1% severe hypo rate vs a 5.1% severe hypo rate. Correct me if I've made a arithmetic mistake, but to me, that's a 28% reduction in hypo's for Afrezza, even though we made the Afrezza group "look" as bad as we possibly could. Rapp is still wrong!
Apparently, a .4 value can be better than a .5 if the error (?) (Its been a lot of years for me for statistics)
is smaller on the .4 vs a .5 with a larger error, if those are the right terms.