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: DaiS who wrote (20232)	4/1/1999 2:34:00 PM
From: Little Gorilla	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23519

Urology 1999 Mar;53(3):481-6 Safety and efficacy of sildenafil in postmenopausal women with sexual dysfunction. Kaplan SA, Reis RB, Kohn IJ, Ikeguchi EF, Laor E, Te AE, Martins AC Department of Urology, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA. [Medline record in process] OBJECTIVES: Sildenafil has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in the treatment of men with erectile dysfunction. The role of sildenafil in treating women with sexual dysfunction has heretofore not been reported. The purpose of this preliminary study was to ascertain the response of postmenopausal women with self-described sexual dysfunction treated with sildenafil for 3 months. METHODS: Thirty-three consecutive postmenopausal women with sexual dysfunction based on history were entered in this open-label, nonrandomized study. All patients received 50 mg of sildenafil. Efficacy was assessed at weeks 4, 8, and 12 using a newly developed 9-item, self-administered Index of Female Sexual Function (IFSF) and a global efficacy question ([GEQ] Did treatment improve your sexual function?). The IFSF quantifies the domains of desire, quality of sexual intercourse, overall satisfaction with sexual function, orgasm, lubrication, and clitoral sensation. RESULTS: Of the group, 30 women (91 %) completed the study and were available for follow-up at 3 months. Mean baseline IFSF score before therapy was 24.8+/-9.8. Mean usage of sildenafil was 3.1+/-1.4 times per week for the duration of the study. The IFSF score improved to 29.5+/-7.6, 30.3+/-8.5, and 31.4+/-10.4 at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, respectively (P = 0.25). Mean scores for questions 2 (lubrication), 8 (orgasm), and 9 (clitoral sensation) improved by 23.2%, 7.4%, and 31.3%, respectively, at 12 weeks. Seven women (21%) noted improvement on the GEQ. Overall, only 6 (18.1%) of 33 patients had a significant (more than 60% improvement in IFSF score) therapeutic response. Clitoral discomfort and "hypersensitivity" occurred in 7 women (21%), 3 of whom withdrew from the study. Other side effects, which did not result in withdrawal from the study, included headache (n = 5), dizziness (n = 4) and dyspepsia (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that sildenafil is well tolerated in postmenopausal women with sexual dysfunction. Overall sexual function did not improve significantly, although there were changes in vaginal lubrication and clitoral sensitivity. The role of sildenafil in treating sexual dysfunction in various cohorts of women remains to be determined.

To: DaiS who wrote (20232)	4/1/1999 3:16:00 PM
From: VLAD	Respond to of 23519

DaiS, I like the first paragraph in bold. It basically says that Vivus has no control of the stock price based on external factors. I feel that that one page link represents a thorough hand washing on Vivus' part. So be it. As you well know one of the complaints charged by the lawyers suing Vivus was that they "knew" that a "better" product was coming out that would adversely effect product sales. Seeing that a large group of investors long Vivus here on SI spent many months discussing the potential effects of Viagra on MUSE sales, even we were way off target. I think I can speak for the "majority" of share holders when I say that we thought that initially Viagra would hurt MUSE sales but after a couple of quarters we would see a respectable rebound but none of us believed we would see such a sharp and drastic drop in product sales and then be left with a company that had no sales force to market its product. If anyone here could have predicted these events would be rich and this can be said about any stock. The lawyers are nothing but a bunch of greedy pigs. They jump on and sue ANY stock that gaps down on bad news before even knowing anything about the company. Look at any stock that gaps down and then find me one that doesn't have the same group of 20 or so law firms advertising for its services. In the end, most of these lawsuits settle out of court. The insurance companies estimate what its legal costs would be and usually settle for a little less even if they think they can win. The lawyers then take the settlement amount and first take out whatever filing fees/court costs were incurred to initiate the lawsuit. Then from the remaining pool of money the lawyers pocket 1/3. the remaining 2/3 get split up among any share holder who can prove he/she owned stock over the given class action period. I have never seen this type of settlement give the share holders over a dollar a share after the lawyers take their cut. Usually they get about 25 to 75 cents a share. So for example, if you bought 1000 shares of Vivus on November 20, 1997 @ $25/share and then sold less than a month later on December 17, 1997 @ $10/share. Your loss was $15,000.00. So what is the best that investor can expect thanks to the sharks? Assume 50 cents a share or $500.00. That's a 3% recovery for the share holder while the lawyers make millions just for soliciting clients, making allegations and filing forms to the courts. It really makes me sick but seeing that the politicians who make the laws regarding such things are mostly lawyers there is no reason that anything should change in favor of preventing frivolous lawsuits against corporations whose stock value declines after bad news.