Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : ARIAD Pharmaceuticals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (3228)	2/21/2014 8:19:57 AM
From: tom pope	1 Recommendation Recommended By biofisher Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4474

AF is unrelenting in his criticism of ARIA, and especially Harvey Berger. The virulence makes it sound personal. I would be tempted to discount his views - EXCEPT he got it right last summer when he foretold that pona had problems. Remember "dirty drug"?

To: tejek who wrote (3228)	2/21/2014 9:29:02 AM
From: fitzdad55	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4474

I think there is some personal enmity between Feuerstein and Berger that is partly coloring AF's view of Ariad. I've also had a chance to look at some of the literature on AP26113 and it does seem to hold a great deal more promise than a drug with the pejorative description assigned to it by AF. Thanks for posting this clip of Dr. Camidge's presentation.

To: tejek who wrote (3228)	2/21/2014 9:47:13 AM
From: Biomaven	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4474

I think AF's position is colored by that of his HF friend who (at one point at least) was short ARIA. From my perspective, '113 (assuming the pulmonary tox issues are settled, which on the surface they appear to be) is clearly better than LDK. Still unclear how it compares with the Chugai drug. Peter

To: tejek who wrote (3228)	2/21/2014 2:27:22 PM
From: DewDiligence_on_SI	2 Recommendations Recommended By HerefordRibSteak jq1234si Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4474

I don’t think it’s personal. Feuerstein tends to write in black and white rather than shades of gray—it’s an easier style for the masses to comprehend and it generates more heated discussion, which is good for (Feuerstein’s) business. Moreover, Feuerstein’s criticism of Berger is valid insofar as there are numerous documented examples where Berger was dishonest with shareholders. In my opinion, whatever success ARIA has had from an investment standpoint has come in spite* of Berger, not because of him. *Feuerstein’s recent tweets about PRAN are a case in point.

To: tejek who wrote (3228)	2/22/2014 3:55:09 AM
From: jq1234si	2 Recommendations Recommended By DewDiligence_on_SI tom pope Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4474

I don't think his comment on 113 is that far off if you look at substance only rather than the tone. ALK+ is a relative small indication in NSCLC, and there is lots of competition in this space. Many tend to stress the differentiation, but if you look from further away distance, the three 2nd generations ALK inhibitors from NVS, Roche, ARIA are more similar than different - they are more like Sprycel and Tasigna to me, similar efficacy with different safety kinks. In this type of situation, first to market is important. NVS has two-year lead, Roche one-year lead over ARIA, which is an advantage, see Gleevec. I am not entirely sure pulmonary issue is entirely behind at this point because ARIA decided to maintain 90mg arm in upcoming trial. Based on all data available, everything considered, efficacy, safety in 1st and 2nd line, development plan, time to market etc, if I HAVE to pick one with some advantage over the others, I would pick Roche's at this moment.