Kahuna,
As I said before, "I ain't through with you yet!"
It puzzles me that someone who claims to have NO position in Vivus constantly monitors this obscure little biotech's thread on the Silicon Investor. In fact Kahuna, when I look at your post history, the Pfizer and Vivus boards are the only two you post on. Why is this? I can understand Pfizer but why such a deep interest in a company that you have supposedly no financial interest in?
Also, another thing that I feel I must "get off my chest" is your constant comparison of Vivus to Pfizer. How can you compare these two companies when they are NOT considered to be in the same peer group?
Although Vivus currently is marketing only MUSE and Actis, it only has 31.8 million shares to divide its earnings over as compared to Pfizer's 1,317 million shares.
To put that into a different perspective, Vivus has less than 1/40th of the shares outstanding or about 2.4%.
Pfizer has the largest and best trained sales/marketing force in the United States compared to Vivus' ZERO.
Pfizer spends over $2 billion annually on R&D compared to Vivus' $10 to $15 million.
The point I am trying to make is that you have no right to compare my Vivus Chihuahua to your Pfizer Gorilla. If you were an investor in eg Zonagen, Macrochem, Icos, Cephalon, or Liposome then our discussions could be on equal grounds but it is not.
As you well know, my main axe to grind with Pfizer and Viagra is the safety issues ie the way the FDA never convened an expert advisory pannel on Viagra and allowed its fast track approval without testing the "at risk group". I am even more insenced by Pfizer's continued denial surrounding the safety issues. Had they produced a label from the get go claiming that Viagra had not been tested on men with cardiovascular disease and that doctors should avoid using Viagra on this specific group until further tests can determine exactly how safe Viagra is in this group I would give Pfizer credit for placing the public safety over corporate greed. IMO Pfizer now has dug a hole so deep that they will never be able to admit that they knew that safety testing in the "at risk" group was virtually non-existent and the Viagra should have been labeled accordingly.
I firmly believe that this will all come out in the wash in the final analysis and when it does, Pfizer will use the classic excuse that it had no way of knowing what the effects of Viagra would be in all patients across the board and that it is not practical to test the drug in all at risk groups before marketing the drug. In many instances I would agree with this assessment but in Viagra's case, Pfizer knew that many men with ED have underlying cardiovascular problems which are the cause of the ED in the first place.
Kahuna, you remind me of a member of the Soviet Communist Party. You sit in your comfortable position touting the Party line.
It goes something like, "I lie to you. You lie to me. Everything is OK."
Someday you will accept the truth(I hope) regarding these important safety issues. The purpose of my harping on this matter is simple: Viagra has consumed about 75% of Vivus' lunch and I believe that had the FDA been less politically controlled via Pfizer's influence on Capital Hill, then proper safety labeling would probably resulted in a much healthier Vivus since a large majority of MUSE patients fall into the "at risk" group.
Comeone Kahuna! Confess to your sins! Us Vivites can be forgiving.
|
