Randy from the WSJ on the Framingham study:
>>As much as 6% of the general population has the type of heart-valve...
That is larger than the 1% to 2% initially estimated by the Food and Drug Administration when it pulled the drugs, but significantly smaller than the 32% rate the agency found in seemingly healthy people who had taken the medicines.
But the Framingham study also casts doubt on the drug defenders' theory that any high incidence of valve abnormalities may have been related to users' underlying obesity, rather than being a side effect. Dr. Benjamin said her findings showed no general relationship between obesity and valve leakage, or regurgitation, and that "if anything, the more obese you were, the less regurgitation you had." .
Gerard Aurigemma, a cardiologist at the University of Massachusetts in Worcester, says the Framingham study is valuable because it looked at "a more appropriate" age range than did the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study, a large survey cited by the FDA.
<<
6% is significantly smaller [statistically!] than 32%. Also, the [low] 6% [vis-a-vis 32%] is very important as it is based on a more relevant group of people. If this is the most optimistic ammunition IPIC has in hand, I am shorting some more Monday!
Randy said: >>But I am also optimistic based on the FDA findings as these are highly suspicious, only made more so by the WSJ survey which highly contradicted the FDA findings.<<
The difference (i.e., 32% vs. 6%) is still statistically significant. If you consider the FDA missing the 6% highly suspicious. What do you think the courts will think about IPIC missing the 32% [i.e., close to one third!] during clinical trials and follow up after approval?
Randy wrote: >>And in consideration of the Dow Corning release you posted, this simply shows how long this legal process can take ( and will take if continued), so when and if the suits will directly create a strain to the revenues other than from the recall, we will be sitting pretty<<
Did you notice that the company is bankrupt? I wonder how that happen to a company with much greater resources than IPIC? Let me think: could it have been a result of implant liabilities? You are right the legal process is long AND EXPENSIVE. Particularly when your revenue source has dried up and the investment bankers will have a hell of a time attracting any more "dumb" money.
Randy wrote: >>I feel when more scientific information is obtained, the diet drugs will show themselves to create a very significantly smaller potentiator in valvular disease, and that this potentiation will be time related (ie the longer on the drugs, the higher chance) <<
This is your wish, not a fact. When and if this evidence develops I will cover.
A greater worry I have now is the spinning of assets [to save some of them from being taken away by claims]. I think the probability of this is significant, unlike Neuro's opinion who considers it fiction [Boy if he is making it in the stock letter writing business I am going to have to consider starting my own stock letter!]. More specifically a potential spin-off of Intercardia in which case I would have to come up with the stock to pay the dividend. Hopefully some wise A. lawyer will stop the transaction before it happens.
I sincerely hope you are just driving your Z3 convertible ALONE at 100MPH from Ventimiglia to Monte Carlo and not trying to pull out the same 100MPH stunt with a busload of innocent SI people.
Regards
Pancho |
