The article with statistics from EASL from 3/21

I wrote yesterday that I had written to Adam Feuerstein, the gentleman that wrote the article with the numbers we should look for from the EASL conference in April.  He wrote me back yesterday and ask some pretty good questions, I was totally taken aback.

He made a statement..."we have been aware of your board in the financial community for a long time now".  Hopefully, you will be assured by my telling him that we KNEW we were being read, but I shared my feelings that while they may be reading, they are not comprehending.  

The value of Teleprevir right now is very evident, it brings vl down to UND in an amazingly short amount of time.  By itself, that is enough to add it to the SOC therapy already.  As someone who went thru the old protocol of a 2 log drop being acceptable at 12 long weeks, not even becoming UND, the value in a drug with that mechanism is outstanding to me.  And to be able to shorten tx, to 24 weeks, by that early UND is also impacting to the protocols around the tx of Hep C.  Less exposure time to IFN and it's damage, not to mention less exposure to riba and its effect on blood levels.

Willows

[willows]

He found all this interesting, I think, and long story short, I told him that investors were looking for a "silver bullet." Like I said yesterday....silver bullets are fine when you're huntin werewolves, but I believe so strongly investors and journalists are being very shortsighted, there will be no silver bullet for this virus, but a combo of bullets as with other viral diseases.  Then I told him investors needed to take their heads out of their bu  tts and take a look, long term and they may see the value of teleprevir and what it REALLY means to Hep C tx in the future.  

All in all, I feel a lot better when I don't look at the Vertex stock, because for me, it is all about the drug.  Investors, I gotta tell you, in my tiny experience, they don't know squat about where they are putting their money, when it comes to biotech and journalists could do a bit more research.  Maybe Adam Feuerstein will take a second look and come up with some better info in the future.  One can only hope.

Wonky Willow

[GrandOak]

The long and short of it is that while it may bring down VL in some faster, this is not always the case.  Also, it may allow some to go through tx that might not have otherwise provided they can do so with a shorted treatment period, it seems that this is not the case for everyone.

It has been documented that like all meds, VX950 brings it's own set of sx's to the table as well.  Thus, utilization of this med in a person's tx regimen may also wind up excluding or compromising the tx ability some folks who may have been better off with SOC.

So, while not a "silver bullet", it also is not the panacea miracle drug that so many seem to be hyping it up to be either.  But if it instills optimism in folks and raises their hopes for recovery, then great.

[3txsofar]

I have been investing for a few decades and know Hep C personally.  One of the good ways to stay on top of a company is to listen to the quarterly conference calls. In these, the company gives a run down on their recent quarterly results and typically offers some guidance to the near term future.  Then, the analysts take trun answering questions.  Sometimes the questions are hard hitting. It was during one of these that Jefff Skilling of Enron famously utterred an epithet at a hard questioner.  

I have always been amazed at the low level of comptence at the analysts for biotech and pharmaceutical companies.    For example, you can listen to the latest Vertex conference call here:

http://investor.shareholder.com/vrtx/eventdetail.cfm?eventid=34680

[nygirl7]

Agreed.

The thing is still that we haven't seen what true SVR rates are and if in fact medically manipulating the virus to drop quicker ends up being in the long term of any real benefit.  THAT data is what we need to see and in fact it's just not going to be available for quite a while.

If they can figure out how to get the 10% drop out rate down and the SVR rates come in better - it will be of amazing benefit.  But at a 3x intolerance level right now that is a major concern for me.  I'm hoping and praying that someone is SERIOUSLY looking at a newer med that will NOT rely on current combo treatment as they do NOT work for many people - and even adding the tele wouldn't make any difference.

We can only hope and pray that the general public is made much more aware of this disease and that it's NOT only addicts and sexually aggressive people (and why since it's not even really sexually transmitted THAT makes any sense as a set of people mystifies me) that have ALREADY contracted this and don't know it - perhaps if more people found out EARLIER that they were in fact affected THAT would make a HUGE difference in treatment...that more funding will be available for the real silver bullet.

I hope and pray that the protease inhibitors might come through - or whatever cocktail it is that will work comes soon.

[nygirl7]

I meant agreed with my pal GOak but it took too long for me to post ;)

[willows]

Not sure i understand the "medically manipulate" the virus statement, but I repeat, as someone who couldn't even reach und at 12 weeks, my doctor has said when teleprevir is available, it will be a powerful tool for him to use.

Mr. Feuerstein has written back and agreed that there is a disconnect between what is written by wall street types and the real people (us) regarding Hepatitis C and the current tx.  He asked if he could use part of what I wrote in a column he writes.  If the information makes one more financial person a bit smarter, then my e-mails were worth it.  Be fun to read.

As to the drop out rate, I had to drop out at 24 weeks from viral load increase.  There will be drop out and untreatable cases as in any disease.  But Mr. Feuerstein acknowledged that the results so far of teleprevir have had and will have an impact on changing protocols for the medical community with regard to Hepatitis C.   Change is hard in any field and we all want to cling to what works for us, even if there are better ways on the horizon.  But teleprevir is a good step in a right direction, drop out rate, rash or not.  

I'm not a doctor or a researcher, just a patient of a great doctor who says teleprevir has value already, my case being the perfect example.  If I could have taken teleprevir in the first 12 weeks and brought my levels to UND, the following SOC would have had one heck of an easier time.  Might have worked and I wouldn't be looking at cirhossis.  

Willow bending in the face of opposing comments/but not understanding exactly

[willows]

Just for fun you can read for yourself what he wrote to me.  It is good step forward and maybe, just maybe help a little with that better information that nygirl is talking about.  This is just a cut and paste from his e-mail.. You know what's funny, the financial community is always reading and quoting us, now it is our turn!!!

**Thanks again for your input. It

[mremeet]

Believe me I don't object to you contacting financial webpage writers, or media types, or the clergy, or little green men from mars. You can talk to whomever you want about whatever you want, whenever you want as far as I'm concerned. It's apk here that objects to this "free flow" of information, very especially when it's even vaguely negative in respect to telaprevir. He tried to deny that our rashes were being caused by telaprevir way back when (before data was released from Vertex proving otherwise), later he became upset and attacked me personally for posting the reported risks and side effect profile (inlcuding details about rash) of telaprevir (which was quoted verbatim directly from the Vertex consent form). And he himself withheld that same side effect profile from everyone here (and he was the first to get it). Just a few of the many reasons why we've not got along, and also why some of us feel he's suspicious. Best case scenario for apk is that since he was fortunate enough to meet with treatment success and not experience bad side effects during his treatment with telaprevir, he's the type of guy that doesn't want to hear or see negative reports from anyone else who may have experienced otherwise. Worst case scenario is that he's not treating at all, and he's here for some ulterior motive.

The only people I'm aware of that have contacted Mr. Feuerstein are yourself and Willy. Obviously apk doesn't think you guys are "qualified" to contact and interface with such a lofty and influential person (i.e., someone who might say something vaguely uncomplimentary about telaprevir). And also, apk obviously disapproved of what Mr. Feuerstein wrote. I don't know why, I read what he wrote, and in balance I thought he presented the pros and cons in a well written, balanced and informative manner. I'm sure apk thought it was a "hit piece" because it spoke openly of the significant side effect profile and the uncertainty of the drugs future as a consequence of that - as I said before, that's a no no in apk's world. From any non-biased rational perspective, Mr  Feuerstein wasn't down on vertex, just presenting the facts as they're commonly understood today (which is what his readers expect, of course). And sure, he made a few technical wording errors here and there, but nothing to meaningfully mischaracterize the scenario from (and for) a stock trader's perspective. Also, those minor wording errors are perfectly understandable considering he's not an HCV infected person fully steeped in all of its idiosyncrasies like many of us here are. In general he seems to be well informed for a non-HCV infected person that doesn't specialize only in a single stock dealing with a single disease.

[jboyhk]

I have to take the opposite side.

I would agree with the analysts as better predictor but don't draw the same conclusions.

The reason why the stock drops is not becuase they think its ineffective but it does not shut the door for HCV treatment.

That means the other anti virals out in the mkt may have the same effect as VX-950 minus the rash.

Look, there are about 5 antivirals out now for HBV treatment and more in clinical trials. The reason why there are so many is that the early ones had viral mutation issues.

If VX-950 was a home run drug then other drug manufactors wouldn't be so keen on investing in newer antivirals.

The stock drop is reflecting this loss of monopoly gains, NOT ineffectiveness in treatment.

[mremeet]

Oopps, sorry posted this in the wrong place. It's been reposted where it was originally supposed to be.

http://www.medhelp.org/forums/hepatitis/messages/45559.html

[andiamo]

I applaud your effort to educate the stock analyst.  It would certainly benefit us all if they were better educated.

I do hope that no one here gets upset about analysts or stock prices.  The stock price and the success of VX-950 (from our perspective) are, at best, loosely related.

It is the job of the analyst to come up with a model of the revenue of the company over 5 years and then work backwards to today in order to value the stock.  In the case of a Biotech or any other risky asset with a high risk/reward ratio, the revenue has to be a parabolic curve heading to the stratosphere in order to get a high valuation of the stock.

Because of the shape of this curve, small changes in the model in the early stages have a dramatic effect as you move further out in time.  So, a trial that takes longer or has slightly less dramatic results has a huge impact on the stock price because it delays or reduces revenue.

These changes will probably have no material impact on us, but will have an impact on the stock price.  The bottom line: listen to the doctors and scientists and not the stock analysts.  Vertex is going to proceed at full speed with this.  If they slowed down at all their stock would fall so fast you would hear a sonic boom

[willows]

He seemed genuinely interested in expanding what he knew about Hep C and openly admitted that he did not know "everything" about Hep C.  By the same token, he knows way more than I do about financials and what wall street is looking at in a stock.  

It was fun to hear that he was going to put a personal spin on his advice when it came to biotechs, even if it was just for one column, and I don't think he was even going to single out Vertex.  

I don't understand the dynamics of kaos and you, so I won't go there.  I only responded because it seemed like some tension was in play around "who" had written to Mr. Feuerstein.  I'm kind of disappointed tho, because ANYONE who would take the time to read our posts might come to believe we were all at each other's throats a lot of the time.  But again, I do not have all the info and when it comes down to it, I only have my opinion and observations.

We are all better educated than we know about Hep C, it's sad when that knowledge gets lost in personal ****.  Hope this all works out someday for both of you, because it will be a better day for the forum and for me.

Willow

[3txsofar]

I think that the real reason for the recent stock drop is that all of the risk until mid-April is to the downside.

Vertex has clearly communicated that the next major news release is at EASL in mid April.  So, there will be no good news until then as their hands are tied by the strictures that scientific meetings put on you if you want to present at their meetings.  They are however obligated by SEC requirements to communicate bad news, if there is any.

So, until mid-April we have downside risk with very little upward potential.  With that backdrop, more people will sell than buy and so the price goes down.  But at some point before mid-April, speculators will buy in anticipation and the price will move up until the news is released and then the price will be dependent on that news.  

[jboyhk]

I wouldn't disagree with that statement.

I just don't agree with the statement that stock analysts are not educated enough on the issues. They are extremely educated on all the issues since their livelihood is to make money on the issues.

[andiamo]

My point is not that stock analysts are not educated.  It is that they have different interests and motivations.  They are interested in company revenue, not the effectiveness of the drug and those two are not directly coupled:  if a company produces a drug the wipes out the disease with one dose, the revenue will be less than if it needs to be taken for life (as long as no other company has a better choice)

My point is that this forum should not focus on stock price or stock analysts opinions on company revenues.  They are secondary issues to the disease treatments and our well being.

We have enough to worry about!!!

[andiamo]

My point is not that stock analysts are not educated.  It is that they have different interests and motivations.  They are interested in company revenue, not the effectiveness of the drug and those two are not directly coupled:  if a company produces a drug the wipes out the disease with one dose, the revenue will be less than if it needs to be taken for life (as long as no other company has a better choice)

My point is that this forum should not focus on stock price or stock analysts opinions on company revenues.  They are secondary issues to the disease treatments and our well being.

We have enough to worry about!!!

[andiamo]

My point is not that stock analysts are not educated.  It is that they have different interests and motivations.  They are interested in company revenue, not the effectiveness of the drug and those two are not directly coupled:  if a company produces a drug the wipes out the disease with one dose, the revenue will be less than if it needs to be taken for life (as long as no other company has a better choice)

My point is that this forum should not focus on stock price or stock analysts opinions on company revenues.  They are secondary issues to the disease treatments and our well being.

We have enough to worry about!!!