SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ)
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RT who wrote (5175)2/1/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: Tunica Albuginea  Read Replies (2) of 23519
 
Rt, in regards to HVSF patent.Several points why I fell comfortable:
-I asked Dave Yntema 7 months ago about " whether Vivus can defend
their patent if somebody found a way to insert a liquid through a
catheter into the urethra " .His answer was yes.They had just come
through defending a patent infringement in the UK.
-A gel is going to present several tecnnical problems:
=More volume will be needed to allow for residual adhering to
plastic.
=More vol will mean: more expense; it will be difficult to dose, if
patient does not express out all of it.
=the gel will be distributed more widely along the length of the
urethra.That means that some of it may go all the way back at the
base where it could theoretically go all the way back into the
bladder.
=in fact if the massage is done inappropriately, the gel could be
massaged right out of the urethra into the bladder or come out the
front.That means that the patient would have to squeeze tight his
urethral meatus(the opening of the urethra in the penis) to prevent
the gel from coming out during the massage;sort of awkward to
squeeze with one hand and massage with the other.

-Most importantly, the greater distribution will cause a greater
degree of absorption of the material thus greatly enhancing the
potential for systemic absorption and thus hypotension and systemic
side effects.
-preservtion of a liquid in plastic creates problems of absorption
& degradation of the material by the plastic.

A very significant aspect that people have significantly missed here however is the Irwin-Urology-torch-bearer-Goldstein: he is the one that said MUSE /Alprostadil doesn't work very well in the urethra and
here he is advising HVSF about how to administer Alprostadil though
the urethra!!!!! Alprostadil in the urethra does the same thing whether ina pellet or a liquid! Overall there is now something fishy
about Barrons stories on Padma Nathan and Goldstein and Barrons alleged penchant of trying to short stocks: Look at Organogenesis who only last week was reccommended as a short by Barrons and now the FDA
panel approved it. I am sure you 'll see a big short squeeze on Organogenesis shorts tomorrow. Similar to the one I think that Vivus shorts will get,..one day..g.

-one final point:other patent attorneys or interested
parties/potential HVSF investors must have looked at this: why is
HVSF languishing at 96 cents a share? Maybe somebody DID take Gene's
advice and forked over $100 to an attorney for a Vivus/HVSF patent
search and thus subsequently decided to dump HVSF shares at 96
cents!!

TA
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News