Arrayfunction
:
Unless you need the cash for something else, I wouldn't panic. They just filed for setting up a share buyback program intending up to $10 million of cash over time.
They were never a strong player in the MPOX game, so I am not worried (holding a few thousand shares). I've been dollar cost averaging all the way down.
TNX-102 is the closest I've personally seen to a sure thing for FDA approval by this point (due to very specific circumstances at play - not going to be like that for their other pipelines). The fact they intend to have that much cash to spend leads me to believe they intend to sell the patent ASAP and put that towards the buyback.
Goldman Sachs
OP
Arrayfunction
:
Thank you for your interest and information, I am thinking about the long-term benefit of 2 or 3 dollars But I still have a question, is the company doing good work? I do not care if the stock goes down, it will inevitably go up
If you mean the quality of the research trials, I have only paid attention to the TNX-102 phase 3 ones. I haven't noticed any red flags in their preliminary announcements. And if they are in regular contact with the FDA - which I have seen no reason to doubt - they will have had their trial design ahead of time.
If you meant good as in the drug will be effective - everything has pointed that way. It isn't some crazy new therapeutic mechanism - cyclobenzaprine has been around for decades as a muscle relaxer. They just changed it from a pill to an under the tongue dose (assuming fast dissolving tablet to guarantee dosage). I presume that allows for much faster absorption, which fits with the intention of improving sleep quality (sleep is not easy with chronic pain).
It seems very much to be working that way. I am also happy to see the results have shown improvements in conditions, like depression, that a lack of sleep worsens.
If good meant ethical, then...........eh? The US drug market kind of requires companies to be a bit evil. Cash price for the drug will need to be in the range of hundreds of dollars per dose in order to have a noticeable ROI.
So, are they taking a preexisting cheap drug, tweaking it just a bit to get a patent and jacking up the price? Yes.
Will this also open up treatment access to patients by reducing liability of doctors afraid to prescribe off-label and force insurance to cover it? Also yes.
Would any company take on the millions of dollars and years of risk if they couldn't jack up the price at the end? Absolutely not.
Arrayfunction
Arrayfunction
:
Kinda up to you where you land ethically. I like to offer the contrast between ketamine and scopolamine - both were first observed to be rapid acting anti-depressants (which otherwise didn't exist) in recent decades.
Ketamine infusions started to be used off-label, but insurance wouldn't cover it. You would need $10,000+ to complete a course.
Scopolamine has never been used to any great extent.
Which has the worse side effects? Ketamine Which has the greater abuse potential? Ketamine Which has to be administered over hours in a clinic? Ketamine
Why ketamine the one that was used? No official reason, but I strongly suspect profit. Ketamine infusions are extremely lucrative for places like pain management clinics (where they already have the infrastructure to do infusions as a pain treatment) because they can put all their overhead on the customer's bill.
No money to be made on scopolamine - it's just a prescription for a cheap patch a patient uses anywhere.
Smelling the cash in the water - Jannsen (a JnJ company) wanted in. They decided to take ketamine and stick it in a nasal spray (which has a bioavailability is only ~60% vs 100% with infusions). Needing more novelty to get a patent, they decided to push the S enantiomer of ketamine being better than regular racemic ketamine. Is there actually a difference? Nope. They got juuuuust enough of an effect size that the S enantiomer had less intense side effects to get statistical significance and now they can charge $900 for 28 mg of a drug that cost less than $3 otherwise.
Arrayfunction
Arrayfunction
:
But it does still work and it still magic compared to standard anti-depressant meds. That $900 a bottle also meant insurance had to cover it. So it is the only way I could have afford the treatment. Even then, not only did it not take off like it should, the number of providers offering it has been shrinking. For them, they don't think they make enough to justify th extra red tape FDA approval brings with a hallucinogenic drug.
Has anyone tried to put Scopolamine through a clinical trial to then sell it? Nope. I am guessing it is because they already have made a pill and made a patch, so it's going to be a lot harder to evergreen. There is also no marketing for it (like with both ketamine infusions and es-ketamine) so most doctors won't even know about the potential.
I only discovered the anti-depressant effects when trying to find a blood pressure med with fewer side effects. My psych NP had heard of it anecdotally as an anti-depressant but could not recommend it "officially" as no formal data existed. But the risks were low enough that he would let me trial it. Turned out to be one of 3 drugs out of the 15 or so I have tried that actually led to improvement. Sad to think it will be kept from others with treatment resistant depression, but that's how it goes
XJJX : Did you buy 135k shares at 0.442?
Goldman Sachs OP XJJX : Yes
Arrayfunction : Unless you need the cash for something else, I wouldn't panic. They just filed for setting up a share buyback program intending up to $10 million of cash over time.
They were never a strong player in the MPOX game, so I am not worried (holding a few thousand shares). I've been dollar cost averaging all the way down.
TNX-102 is the closest I've personally seen to a sure thing for FDA approval by this point (due to very specific circumstances at play - not going to be like that for their other pipelines). The fact they intend to have that much cash to spend leads me to believe they intend to sell the patent ASAP and put that towards the buyback.
No crystal balls over here. Just my thoughts
Goldman Sachs OP Arrayfunction : Thank you for your interest and information
, I am thinking about the long-term benefit of 2 or 3 dollars
But I still have a question, is the company doing good work? I do not care if the stock goes down, it will inevitably go up
Arrayfunction Goldman Sachs OP : Uhhhhhh, that depends on your definition of good
If you mean the quality of the research trials, I have only paid attention to the TNX-102 phase 3 ones. I haven't noticed any red flags in their preliminary announcements. And if they are in regular contact with the FDA - which I have seen no reason to doubt - they will have had their trial design ahead of time.
If you meant good as in the drug will be effective - everything has pointed that way. It isn't some crazy new therapeutic mechanism - cyclobenzaprine has been around for decades as a muscle relaxer. They just changed it from a pill to an under the tongue dose (assuming fast dissolving tablet to guarantee dosage). I presume that allows for much faster absorption, which fits with the intention of improving sleep quality (sleep is not easy with chronic pain).
It seems very much to be working that way. I am also happy to see the results have shown improvements in conditions, like depression, that a lack of sleep worsens.
If good meant ethical, then...........eh? The US drug market kind of requires companies to be a bit evil. Cash price for the drug will need to be in the range of hundreds of dollars per dose in order to have a noticeable ROI.
So, are they taking a preexisting cheap drug, tweaking it just a bit to get a patent and jacking up the price? Yes.
Will this also open up treatment access to patients by reducing liability of doctors afraid to prescribe off-label and force insurance to cover it? Also yes.
Would any company take on the millions of dollars and years of risk if they couldn't jack up the price at the end? Absolutely not.
Arrayfunction Arrayfunction : Kinda up to you where you land ethically. I like to offer the contrast between ketamine and scopolamine - both were first observed to be rapid acting anti-depressants (which otherwise didn't exist) in recent decades.
Ketamine infusions started to be used off-label, but insurance wouldn't cover it. You would need $10,000+ to complete a course.
Scopolamine has never been used to any great extent.
Which has the worse side effects? Ketamine
Which has the greater abuse potential? Ketamine
Which has to be administered over hours in a clinic? Ketamine
Why ketamine the one that was used? No official reason, but I strongly suspect profit. Ketamine infusions are extremely lucrative for places like pain management clinics (where they already have the infrastructure to do infusions as a pain treatment) because they can put all their overhead on the customer's bill.
No money to be made on scopolamine - it's just a prescription for a cheap patch a patient uses anywhere.
Smelling the cash in the water - Jannsen (a JnJ company) wanted in. They decided to take ketamine and stick it in a nasal spray (which has a bioavailability is only ~60% vs 100% with infusions). Needing more novelty to get a patent, they decided to push the S enantiomer of ketamine being better than regular racemic ketamine. Is there actually a difference? Nope. They got juuuuust enough of an effect size that the S enantiomer had less intense side effects to get statistical significance and now they can charge $900 for 28 mg of a drug that cost less than $3 otherwise.
Arrayfunction Arrayfunction : But it does still work and it still magic compared to standard anti-depressant meds. That $900 a bottle also meant insurance had to cover it. So it is the only way I could have afford the treatment. Even then, not only did it not take off like it should, the number of providers offering it has been shrinking. For them, they don't think they make enough to justify th extra red tape FDA approval brings with a hallucinogenic drug.
Has anyone tried to put Scopolamine through a clinical trial to then sell it? Nope. I am guessing it is because they already have made a pill and made a patch, so it's going to be a lot harder to evergreen. There is also no marketing for it (like with both ketamine infusions and es-ketamine) so most doctors won't even know about the potential.
I only discovered the anti-depressant effects when trying to find a blood pressure med with fewer side effects. My psych NP had heard of it anecdotally as an anti-depressant but could not recommend it "officially" as no formal data existed. But the risks were low enough that he would let me trial it. Turned out to be one of 3 drugs out of the 15 or so I have tried that actually led to improvement. Sad to think it will be kept from others with treatment resistant depression, but that's how it goes