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 : VVUS: VIVUS INC. (NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bruce Olsten who wrote (6845)	4/12/1998
From: VLAD	Respond to of 23519

Bruce, Here we go again. Can you please point out exactly where I claimed that Casey said that MUSE is less efficient? Casey said that the transurethral delivery system was INEFFECTIVE not INEFFICIENT! Of course transurethral delivery is less efficient than needle injections. Since not all (100%) of the drug is absorbed through the urethra more drug is needed than if injected. This is why MUSE costs more than Caverject. If you look at cost per mg of prostaglandin then MUSE is actually much cheaper. Funny thing, I recall a post where someone asked if you can take a 1000mg MUSE pellet and dissolve it in solution and then use it as an injection since it would then be much cheaper than Caverject. MUSE is less EFFICIENT and therefore more expensive than Caverject. Men with ED are willing to pay more for MUSE because they do not want to "stick a needle in their dick". This was the reason for the transurethral delivery system invention in the first place. Other than the discomfort or fear of needles, many ED men who used injections now suffer from a fibrosed and/or deformed penis. I hope I cleared things up a bit. VLAD