Zebra: <<And what I posted is not a press release but a work-in-progress by the American College of Cardiology, I happened to see the URL in a Journal today so I pulled it out>>
Dr.Z: The ACC Summary statement document was an "interim recommendation" from the ACC in which "modifications may be necessary in the near future as more information is evaluated". The expert consensus document will be published in December 1998.
Zebra; <<And it contains cautions that the manufacturer of this drug has not seen fit to disseminate regarding their product.>>
Dr. Z: I do not believe any Pharma would "seen fit" to change their package insert based on an incomplete undocumented summary statement.
Zebra: <<The fact that the ACC has seen fit to issue a warning that is greater than that issued by PFE suggests that PFE may face exposure for that additional risk of which they have not informed the intermediaries.>>
Dr. Z: The word "warning" is not used once in the summary statement.
The current Viagra package insert already contains precautions for use in at risk patients. "A thorough medical history and physical examination should be undertaken to diagnose erectile dysfunction, determine potential underlying causes, and identify appropriate treatment. There is a degree of cardiac risk associated with sexual activity; therefore, physicians may wish to consider the cardiovascular status of their patients prior to initiating any treatment for erectile dysfunction. "
Zebra:<<This product has been overshadowed by a product, Viagra, that in my professional opinion, has a significantly greater risk to the target population than does this product, Muse.... The fact that professional organizations and other country's Medical agencies now seem to concur with what I was saying is new news.>>
Dr. Z: The ACC Summary Statement is concerned only with "Patients At Clinical Risk From Cardiovascular Effects". This is not the primary "target population" for any ED products including MUSE. It is doubtful that MUSE will be prescribed for any of the "certain patient profiles" described by the ACC with the exception of nitrate ED patients.
Zebra: <<If PFE is so strong, why does it require such vigilant defense? Certainly, the converse of your premise <<It reinforces my belief that perceived "negative" Viagra news has no impact on the price of VVUS.>> must be true, that positive VVUS news has no impact on PFE. However, could it be that negative Viagra news has a negative impact on the price of PFE stock? >>
Dr. Z: There is certainly no need to defend PFE. Hopefully, information and different opinions will help VVUSErs better evaluate their investments.
If you recall earlier in 1998, many on this Board, many VVUSers strongly claimed that Viagra would be a major market failure ..."not effective" ...."lasts only 10 minutes" ..... at the very best "greatly expand the market result in a MUSE specification coattail effect." With the exception of the last statement (I was also wrong), I strongly disagreed with these posts.
I agree with you that VVUS news has no impact at all on PFE. Negative Viagra news does have a 1-3 day short term negative effect. YTD, Viagra has had a very positive YTD impact on PFE. In fact, there is not one Pharma company that would not want to have Viagra in its portfolio.
Zebra:<<PFE fell over 10% in market cap since August 10th, having since recovered a bit today.>>
Dr. Z: According to my stock tables, PFE today (@ 106 1/2) has increased 2.6% from its price on August 10th (@103.81). In comparison, the Dow has declined 5.1%.
Zebra: <<If you have any doubt just check the price of PFE stock from July 15th to the present,>>
Dr. Z: On July 15th, PFE closed @ 116 (2 11/16 points from its all-time high close reached two days earlier). Thus, as of today, PFE has declined 8.1% from that date in comparison with a 11.7% decline for the Dow. Accordingly, PFE's decline is more related to price trends in Big Pharma and the general market than "negative or positive" Viagra news.
Best of luck!
BigKNY3
|
