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: VLAD who wrote (19282)	3/6/1999 6:56:00 PM
From: BigKNY3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23519

VLAD <<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. >> V-Man: I'm even more puzzled how someone like you can spend so much time on an investment like VVUS. Reading the VVUS is a true learning exercise in investing in pharma stocks and provides a "different" view of ED investing. VLAD <<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?..The point I am trying to make is that you have no right to compare my Vivus Chihuahua to your Pfizer Gorilla. >> V-Man: Actually, I agree with you, they should not be compared....the only relationship between VVUS and PFE is that VVUS' products compete in the same market as Viagra. Moreover, if you review your own posts, you probably have compared the two companies more than anyone. As an example, here is your 7/2/98 post (VVUS@5.81 and PFE@107.50) www3.techstocks.com VLAD <<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". >> V-Man: On this point we have an honest disagreement...(oops, I forgot you don't believe I'm honest). Similar to the approval of Cozaar and MUSE, the FDA does not require advisory panels for all NDAs. Similar to the pre-approval clinical studies for MUSE, evaluation of a drug in "at-risk" patients are not required and rarely ever conducted. As with 99% of all drugs, the labeling of new products are revised to reflect post-marketing surveillence. MUSE was no exception with modifications in April 1998. VLAD <<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.>> V-Man: Again we totally disagree, the FDA is much more independent and conservative than you realize. Any FDA employee who owns a Pharma stock or receives Pharma $ would be immediately fired. Finally, it is the oral versus transurethral comparison not FDA labeling that resulted in Viagra obtaining and holding a 98% Rx market share in its 4th week on the market. VLAD <<As I said before, "I ain't through with you yet!">> V-Man, that's OK with me. I proudly stand by the accuracy and honesty of the approximate 200 posts that I have placed on this Board since November 1997. Can you say the same for your 3,000 posts since March 1998? Here's my challenge for you: Post YOUR 10 best VVUS posts over the last year you feel resulted in increasing the investment portfolios of readers of this Board. As part of the Challenge, I will post what I consider my 10 best VVUS posts. What do you say? One final question for you to ponder: According to the American Heart Association, if you followed a cohort of 4 million US men over 50 years old over an 11 month period, how many cardiovascular deaths in this group could you expect. a. 50- 100 b. 350- 700 c. 3,000- 5,000 d. 6,000- 9,000 e 10,000-15,000 BigKNY3