Do you always try to change the discussion?
Despite your attempt to twist my comment, I'll give you the courtesy of a response.
I have posted many times that I consider Zonagen to be a risky investment - you can look back & check it out. But the risks with Zonagen are not related to it being a scam, hyped, or any of the other BS claims that have been TRUMPETED by certain individuals - and from time to time you have been one of them.
You commented:
<<From a purely fundamental view, ZONA has done nothing but lose money and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. They are pure speculation from a bullish standpoint and their entire future hinges on the success or failure of a highly controversial drug.>>
How is that different from most development stage biotech/pharma companies? Biotechs have gone for 10-15 YEARS without commercialization. Are you simply saying that all biotechs are too risky?
I disagree that the the ONLY position one can take is bearish - you want some reasons to go long....
#1- They have a drug that has shown statistically significant efficacy over placebo
#2- The side effects profile is VERY insignificant
The combination of #1 & #2 is what is important. The FDA does not specify any minimum efficacy above placebo that is required for approval. A CEO of a pharmaceutical company (not Zona) has told me that if a compound was 1% more effective it could get approved as long as it had little or no harmful side effects. IMHO, that seems to be the big question here. No question that I'm concerned about the recent bad press regarding Viagra & deaths. I'm not at all sold on a real connection, but the reports create bad "vibes" & I don't know the extent to which the agency will be hypersensitized to other submissions in this sector. But this situation developed long after you and others were attacking the company.
Want more reasons?
#3- 60%-90% of drugs that advance through the FDA approval process to the point where Vasomax currently rests, get approved. Published stats from the FDA state this fact. The difference between the 60% - 90% results from side side effects - the less sever, the more likely the approval.
#4- A management track record of meeting promised milestones - have you ever been involved in raising money for one of these companies? I have, and I can tell you that on a list of the five most important things financial types look for in this scenario, this will be #1,#2 and #3.
#5- Lots of cash - combined with #4 - they probably have more cash now than they have spent to date - they could almost start over, but they don't have to because they have....
#6- Additional products in pipeline
#7- Virtually no insider selling
#8- Seal of approval that the SGP partnership carries. You and others have downplayed this claiming that big pharma invests in these situations every day and that the amount of money invested is chump change. Well I never bought that argument but NOW SGP has upped the ante considerably - they have geared up distribution, sales & marketing and actually SOLD a product with their name connected to it to real live patients. This is no longer a simple investment in a potential product. This represents a whole new level of commitment - a HUGE threshhold has been crossed - you should know this - risk management - product liability, etc, etc.
Now that's a fair list - but it's still a risky play. I never suggested that all your marbles be put here. Zonagen has never gone above 15% of my dollars invested - but it was a much higher percentage of my portfolio value - that's what happens when you invest at $3-$5 and it goes above $40 - you don't get those returns if you don't play, sorry.
Once again, Hank...
Happy New Year |
