jimmylegs wrote:if the tone of these posts continue with repetitive pettiness in contravention of Arron's stated rules of the board, posted above for the benefit of readers on this thread, then pending moderator conference, this topic may be locked and/or edited and/or deleted.
just a bit of food for thought.
Lyon wrote:ikulo wrote:So it's not so far fetched that these MS companies would do the same to protect their interest from a treatment that could potentially have a devastating impact on their share price. In fact, it's probable. If you were a shareholder, would you want them to spend money to fight this now, or when it has too much momentum to be stopped? If it were my money, I'd vote for the former.
Remember - Noah built the ark before the flood, not after.
#1. I'm not convinced that the people who run pharmas would refrain from doing illegal or immoral things if they thought their income was obviously threatened. Not to be intentionally offensive to people who already are convinced in the efficacy of "liberation" but scientifically NOTHING has been proven in regards to the CCSVI theory regarding either safety or efficacy and that and not anecdotal "evidence" is what pharmas will use to gauge the situation.
While I believe that pharmas take the prospect of losing income VERY seriously, a good number of neuros probably still haven't heard of CCSVI. Other neuros familiar with the hubbub surrounding CCSVI remain unfamiliar with the actual principals of CCSVI. From the looks of things the majority of neuros who do have some familiarity with the theory of CCSVI scoff at it. As someone mentioned earlier, the neuros are the eyes and ears of the pharmas which produce the crabs and from the input they must be getting, it seems to defy logic that they would consider CCSVI a threat worthy of money or effort at this point.
#2. As someone pointed out earlier, even Zamboni's wife is still on one of the crabs and Zamboni publicly states that "liberated" people should stay on the crabs to be safe until more is definite. It doesn't seem likely but even if the pharmas were aware of CCSVI in it's current unproven state, people with MS are being told from all corners to stay on medications until more is certain. When would more be certain at the very earliest? Many years down the road even if "liberation" universally creates a situation in which MS is stopped in it's tracks and it doesn't seem obvious that "liberation" is universally stopping MS in it's tracks.
In worst case the pharmas couldn't justify considering "liberation" an immediate threat now or in the near future and it "seems" that at this point it would be in their best interest by far to stand aside to see if CCSVI fizzles out and thereby eliminate the chance of getting caught trying to quash a theory that so many people are currently so enamored with.
Sales of our innovative products, especially Copaxone®, could be adversely affected by competition.
Our innovative products face or may face intense competition from competitors’ products, which may adversely affect our sales and profitability. Copaxone® is our leading innovative product, from which we derive approximately 18% of our net sales and which contributes disproportionately to our profits. To date, we and our marketing partners have been successful in our efforts to establish Copaxone® as the leading therapy for multiple sclerosis and have increased our global market share among the currently available major therapies for multiple sclerosis. However, Copaxone® faces intense competition from existing products, such as Avonex®, Betaseron®, Rebif®, Extavia® and Tysabri®. We may not be able to introduce price increases at the same rate as in recent years or to offset any decrease in the rate of growth of sales. We may also face competition from additional products in development, including orally administered formulations of Gilenia®, which has recently been granted priority review status by the FDA, cladribine which is the subject of a submitted NDA and fingolimod, which have completed their Phase III trials. In addition, if our patents on Copaxone® are successfully challenged, we may also face generic competition prior to 2014, when the U.S. orange book patents covering Copaxone® would otherwise expire. In July 2008, Sandoz Inc., the U.S. generic drug division of Novartis AG, in conjunction with Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the FDA for a generic version of Copaxone® seeking approval prior to the expiration of our patents. In August 2008, we filed a complaint against Sandoz/Momenta, which triggered a stay of any FDA approval of the ANDA until the earlier of January 2011 or a district court decision (if any) in favor of the ANDA filer. On October 16, 2009, Mylan Laboratories also filed an ANDA for a generic version of Copaxone®. Any substantial decrease in the profits derived from our innovative products would have an adverse effect on our results of operations.
Copaxone® reinforced its position, both in the U.S. and globally, as the leading multiple sclerosis drug, with global sales growing by 25% over 2008, reaching total global in-market sales of $2,826 million
Continued growth in sales of Copaxone®, which increased in-market sales by $534 million in 2009. We benefited from record in-market sales of Copaxone® in the U.S. due to price increases and, to a lesser extent, volume growth
In addition, our increasing focus on innovative and specialty pharmaceuticals requires much greater use of a direct sales force than does our core generic business. Our ability to realize significant revenues from direct marketing and sales activities depends on our ability to attract and retain qualified sales personnel. Competition for qualified sales personnel is intense. We may also need to enter into co-promotion, contract sales force or other such arrangements with third parties, for example, where our own direct sales force is not large enough or sufficiently well-aligned to achieve maximum penetration in the market.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users