Welcome To The Mannkind HUB On AGORACOM
Edit this title from the Fast Facts Section
Message: Raging Bull response to AF Article by Pesa
Surprised that someone else did cross post this here already. Pesa if your your here already, thanks go out to you...
"
 06 Apr 2013, 11:36 AM CDT Rating: 
|
Msg. 27 of 27 Jump to msg. # |
| Why Adam Feurestein Is An Idiot! (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11888089/1/biotech-stock-mailbag-mannkind-ariad-oncolytics-biotech.html) In response to Adam Feurstein's (AF) latest MNKD hit piece (see link above) I offer the following points as it's about time someone shined light on what he really authors: ignorance! Here are the points he raises: According to AF, Afrezza trips all of the FDA's "red flags:" 1. "a new and unproven medical device." Current trials will resolve this. Second, all drugs and devices are new at some point. Third, he offers no facts. Last, as I remember, the FDA insider went long MNKD, which to anyone (except AF, of course) that knows the story, understands he did so because it was slated for approval. 2. "a diabetes drug that's inhaled into the lungs." First, if this was a red flag, Exubera wouldn't have been approved and other drug companies wouldn't have embarked on similar programs if they thought the mere fact it was inhaled were an impediment to approval. Oops, sorrrrrrry AF. Second, Exubera is still approved, despite what IMO wasn't a very good result from their recent FUSE study. Last, again he offers no facts. Nada. Mere, uneducated opinions. Is it the fact it's a diabetes drug? Many are approved. Is the fact it's inhaled? Many drugs are inhaled. So it must be that it's an inhaled diabetes drug....Oops. Already addressed! 3. "two previous rejections". Ummmm, AF don't you state in the very same article that past performance is no guarantee of future results? I could eat this chump for lunch and not even break a sweat. Second, with each rejection the issues have become more limited. Again, his point is absent any concrete facts as to support the ridiculous position. 4. "a history of discord" w/ mgmt/FDA. So he's suggesting that FDA will disapprove because they don't like Al. Hmmmm. I, once again, point to the FDA insider case. The FDA insider was long the stock because....wait for it.....wait for it....it was going to be approved. If you don't know the full story, search for "Shkreli MNKD" (another POS IMO) for the full story. Again, this point is completely absent any empirical evidence that suggests Afrezza doesn't work. That's it? That was his best shot? "funny," "desparate" ....are the only words that come to mind. He then hands it over to some other fine researcher, David Kliff. (yes, that's sarcasm folks) David makes the following points: 5. "It's better form of inhaled insulin than Exubera." Well, at least the guy isn't as ignorant as AF. 6. Afrezza will have to prove the above "over and over again." First, the only people that Exubera made a big statement with was wall street. Period. It wasn't on the market long enough to make any inroads. Readers are reminded PFE pulled the drug for poor sales. I suggest if readers don't know why it was pulled, they should do a bit more reading. Issues included: poor pricing, poor margins, poor inhaler, odd dosing, no benefit over existing diabetes treatments and management bungled it's release/advertising. None of this applies to Afrezza. MNKD mgmt has the benefit of hindsight. It's much less expensive to learn from others' mistakes. Despite Exubera's failure, many patients did like it and some moved over to Afrezza to continue using an inhaled insulin. FACT: the only thing Afrezza and Exubera have in common: they are inhaled. Two other points. First, every new drug needs to prove it over and over again at first. Why should it be any different for Afrezza? Second, it sounds to me like Davy boy thinks it's going to be approved....ooops. (Note to AF....use a different hired gun next time). 7. "Physicians still associate inhaled insulin with Exubera and will need some major convincing." Davey...not if you've paid attention to the informal surveys that have been conducted. Most practitioners feel there's a need for faster acting insulin. And years of clinical trials including lung tests have shown almost no impact whatsoever on lung function (FEV 1.0x) to the extent that's one of your fabricated concerns. 8. MNKD will need money to overcome Davey's expected cold shoulder from practitioners. Here we agree. They will need a partner. But, if they didn't get one....It's not such a bad situation to have a billionaire funding the company that bares his name. I may be a "sucker" as you call us, but I'll side with the billionaires over a chump like you any day! 9. Davey then uses the old bait and switch tactic. well others couldn't do it so Afrezza won't be able to either. Well if that were the measure for all drugs, I wonder how many competitors there would be in any given space? Just like AF, he offers not a single piece of evidence to knock Afrezza; just smoke and mirrors. 10. Then Davey lies to readers in stating that Al Mann has "consistenly stated Afrezza will demand a premium price." I've listened to every conference call and every investor presentation for YEARS. Not once have I heard this supposed "consistent" statement. What I've heard directly from mgmt (on a number of occassions) was that they met with major insurers and were told that if their product was priced within 5% of the competition that it would be placed in Tier II INITIALLY. But that was before all the new data that will be generated from these new studies; studies which are expected to show reductions in A1c and hypoglycemia, AND both studies either have a superiority primary or secondary endpoint. Even if it does wind up priced at a premium, the benefits will outweigh the long term costs associated with diabetes complications due to people not treating their disease as prescribed......a huge problem. I think Davey needs to do a little more research rather than be fed crap from AF. 11. Davey then states that the diabetes community doesn't believe Afrezza works better than injectible solutions. For a guy that has such a strong opinion against Afrezza, you'd think he'd take the time to look at the decade of clinical trial results which clearly make his point LAUGHABLE. Yes, LAUGHABLE. Second, why should they? If they've done the same amount of research as Davey's done, it's no wonder they wouldn't be convinced. They obviously formed the same shallow opinion without doing any research at all. So, AF, who doesn't know anything points to Davey to support his piece and Davey, who obviously hasn't looked at any empirical evidence then points to a "community" that believes the same. Thanks for the laugh fellas. Now, all of you go back and read the hit piece by AF and Davey and notice how much Afrezza facts were used to support their opinions. I counted.......NONE, not a single one! Disclosure: Long MNKD and sick of morons who do no research before posting ignorance. " |
Pesa, wonder if you could post this in the comments of the original article?
Thanks again
OOG
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply