Pharmaceuticals – Under Siege?

Lately, I’ve been blogging about the general malaise that life sciences, and in particular, Big Pharma, are finding themselves in. Last week, I even compared poor Mike Huckman to a canary in a mine. (Apologies there, it seemed like a good idea at the time.)

The recent full court press by the Federal government against Goldman Sachs, first a civil suit, then a criminal investigation, got me wondering what the Beltway Gang was up to with their another one of their favorite bête noirs, Big Pharma. Seems that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to breathe new life into its Office of Criminal Investigations. A recent article by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099942109582112.html ) outlines the FDA’s plans to re-energize itself and the focus of its prosecutions.

Are we seeing yet more evidence of an industry under siege? There’s definitely a more activist administration in Washington, D.C. these days. And Big Pharma has all the characteristics of a great target. Unpopular with the public, aging business model in need of an overhaul, and recipients of large amounts of public largess (i.e., Medicare). Makes me think of the financial services industry. I wonder if we’re going to see Big Pharma’s chairpersons appearing before Congress en masse anytime soon?

But, maybe we won’t see everyone trooping down to the Capitol anytime soon. Here’s why. First, Congress is enjoying themselves too much with the financial services industry. (Big Pharma should consider themselves fortunate in not having a poster child for egregious behavior like Bernie Madoff.) Next, Big Pharma hasn’t provided a lightning rod for public outrage yet. Sure, they’ve had the occasional Vioxx but they haven’t tried to melt down the economy or anything comparable yet.

In ancient China, there was a form of execution cum torture known as the death by a thousand cuts. I won’t go into the details (there are other blogs for that) but you get the idea. This is what Big Pharma is experiencing now. Every day seems to bring another cut/issue. Nothing big by itself but cumulatively they have an effect. Resources are drawn away from things like research and development. Innovation is throttled because of a risk adverse culture developing. Management attention is distracted from running the day to day business let alone forward looking strategic planning.

Once upon a time, Big Pharma was one of the glamour industries. Overtime, they became one of the last men standing. Now, Big Pharma is on the cusp of being another also ran. Globalization and commoditization are bringing down another industry.

I’ll continue to pursue this line for awhile. Unfortunately, I don’t see any significant changes anytime soon.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Good By Mike! (Canary in the Mine?)

I learned this week that Mike Huckman of CNBC and Pharma’s Market (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ) is leaving for a PR firm. His last day is May 7th. I’ve always enjoyed reading his blog which set a very high standard and was always topical. Unfortunately, since his blog is part of a corporate website, we probably won’t see his past blogs much longer. I encourage readers to check out his blog before it disappears. Mike, good luck and thank you for all your past journalistic contributions!

OK, now, what’s on with my aside about Mike being a canary in the mine? In the old days, really old, like before black and white television without remotes, coal miners would take canaries with them into the mines to give early warning about the buildup of dangerous gases. Canary falls over dead, miners skedaddle, you get the idea.

Don’t worry. I’m not suggesting that anything that drastic is going to happen to Mike. But, what I am suggesting is that when a journalist of his caliber who has been covering the pharmaceuticals industry for the last several years for a major media outlet to go into another line of work, you have to ask yourself what’s going on.

Lately, I’ve been blogging about the lack of momentum and direction in Big Pharma. Mike’s departure seems to me to be yet another sign of an industry in trouble. (No, I’m not talking about the media industry. I don’t cover that. For more on that industry, check out Julia Boorstin’s Media Money blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15892686 ) on CNBC.) Mike covered an important industry for a major news network. Now, he’s going off to join the corporate rat race. (Yes, I know that CNBC has its own corporate rat race but you get the idea.) There may be a replacement but somehow I suspect that it’ll be a young wannabe on a part time basis.

Less newsprint, no new products, declining revenues and profits, and no drama don’t make for a good situation for Big Pharma. The auto industry is in a lot of trouble but everyone wants to know what will happen next at General Motors. Will the Chinese, or won’t they, buy Hummer? Will Toyota survive? Soap operas are made of this stuff. Ratings will thrive. Phil LeBeau (Behind the Wheel (http://www.cnbc.com/id/16008341 ) at CNBC) won’t be leaving anytime soon. Big Pharma lacks that kind of plotline.

I’m starting to feel a little lonely out here. To say nothing of trying to divine where this industry is going. But, I enjoy this and Big Pharma is certainly a challenging assignment. Good luck to Mike and everyone else out there covering life sciences!

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Life Sciences Industry – What’s Going On?

Maybe I’m numb or going through withdrawal after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but things seem to be awfully quiet in the life sciences industry lately. I look at other industries, financial services, automotive, and things are hopping. Even railroads have mergers and acquisitions going on.

While I can’t admit to exhaustive research in the life sciences industry, I just haven’t seen a lot of momentum behind anything lately. There are no blockbuster products, no big mergers and acquisitions, or no big research ideas. (I apologize to all those researchers slaving away but they really need to get better publicists.) Business seems to be atrophying. What’s going on?

Are we looking at an industry that’s going away? Now, I’m sure some of you are wondering what I’m rambling about this time. Am I maybe overreaching here? I don’t think so. History’s on my side. Remember the personal computer industry? That went through a similar cycle of boom and bust, if somewhat more accelerated. Once upon a time the media was full of stories about new products, companies, and ideas. Not to mention the personalities? Anyone remember Adam Osborne? (In case you’re curious, he died back in 2003 in India.) Today, the industry’s products are commodities manufactured in China. Some might even argue that with new innovations like iPads or PDA’s personal computers are going the way of the buggy whip.

When I visit Mike Huckman’s blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ) I don’t see any trends developing. (No criticism of Mike is intended, whose blog is one of my favorites (I wonder if he will continue as he is rumored to be leaving CNBC for a PR firm this month), he can only write about what’s out there.) There almost seems to be a defensive posture in the industry. Products are being recalled, regulators are becoming more aggressive, and healthcare reform weighs on the industry.

So what does this mean? If the personal computer industry is any example then consolidation, lower prices, and possible business failures are safe guesses. Maybe this is life science’s high water mark. Or, maybe not. One thing’s for sure, the life sciences industry is in a state of flux. Big time.

All the old rules seem to be changing now. At least as far as life sciences go. The challenge will be identifying what will be the clues to the turnaround, if there is a turnaround.

I’m going to make another one of my predictions. The life sciences industry is going to go way for a while. A long while. The industry’s business fundamentals are askew. Globalization isn’t helping. The regulators are struggling. My blog last week about Myriad Genetics (MYGN) and its legal problems is another piece of evidence. Healthcare reform is beginning in the States. A new generation of companies and managers are needed. I’ll be following this one.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Healthcare Reform: Where’d It Go?

I’ve been a little distracted lately (busy Holidays, snowstorms, colds) but I stopped the other day and U.S. healthcare reform was gone. Poof! Not there anymore. Now, Larry always kids me (you are kidding Larry, aren’t you?) that when distracted I can miss a lot. But, I must’ve had one heck of a lot better New Year’s Eve than I’d realized.

I went to my usual haunts to see if anyone had any perspective on this. Mike Huckman at CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ) and Pharmalot (http://www.pharmalot.com/ ) didn’t mention it. (My apologies if they did and I missed it.)

OK, don’t worry, I’m not going to drag this out. I had heard about Scott Brown’s (http://www.brownforussenate.com/ ) election in Massachusetts. (Ted Kennedy’s old seat no less.) The irony of that victory has not been lost on me. I wasn’t as much surprised by Brown’s victory as how the national discussion on healthcare reform has practically shut down. Despite some noises from Nancy Pelosi and other supporters, there’s virtually nothing compared to prior to Congress’s late Christmas Eve recess.

What’s going on here? Further, what does it mean for Big Pharma? I’m going to go out on a limb here with my views.

First, the Democrats obviously couldn’t arrive at a consensus within their own party about what healthcare reform was all about. (I’m not going to go into the political missteps that cost them Ted Kennedy’s seat.) There were no killer ideas. What began as a high minded crusade to overhaul healthcare in America became a mad, undignified dash for the finish line replete with all sorts of cloakroom deals to make it all happen. No one had any reason to cross the aisle or to worry about why they hadn’t. I suspect that President Obama is probably relieved that he no longer has the Supermajority for this one. We just don’t have any good ideas to implement major healthcare reform. Consensus on smaller issues like tort reform or health insurance regulation may be possible but that’s going to be it for now. We may see this happen as the November midterm elections draw near.

Next, what about Big Pharma? I don’t think that the current status quo concerning healthcare reform is good for them. The topic isn’t going away. Both sides are going back into their corners to get ready for the next round. Uncertainty prevails. The Tea Party movement will play the role of spoiler this year possibly foretelling what will happen in the 2012 Presidential election. Decisions on future drug development not to mention how capital markets will value these companies are only several of the possible issues here.

I’ll be blogging on this theme for a while. With the Congressional elections coming and the White House trying to find common ground with the Republicans, there will be plenty of good material here.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Where’d Everybody Go?

I know that I’ve been a little distracted lately and been off the wire a bit, but, when I resurfaced I was surprised at how quiet everything had suddenly become in the life sciences sector, Big Pharma especially. I e-mailed Larry asking where everybody had gone (except for Mike Huckman, who’s out in LA chasing a story on Dendreon. Check it out at http://www.cnbc.com/id/30033861 .). He replied with his characteristic wit and insight asking that wasn’t this supposed to be my job? Larry did have a point.

A short while ago, everyone was talking about Merck (NYSE: MRK) and Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP), and Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ); Roche (SWX Europe: ROG) and Genentech (NYSE: DNA); Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Wyeth (NYSE: WYE); and, Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Celera (NYSE: CRA). Now, nothing.

OK, the wise guys out there may say, ‘Isn’t this enough?’ (I won’t get into that maybe it was too much. I’ve flogged that poor horse too much already.) One day, we’re all merging and going to dominate the industry. The next, there’s not enough players around for a pickup game of stick ball. Something’s up.

The media aren’t really covering these deals or other possible outcomes presently. Maybe the other news stories are pushing Big Pharma into the back pages, or, off altogether. I have to admit last Sunday’s purported story about President Obama calling General Motor’s (NYSE: GM) CEO, Rick Wagoner, at home and firing him made for a heck of lot better copy than the purported value of Schering-Plough’s pipeline. The stock market’s recent rally has certainly been another distraction, probably, also throwing some deals economics into question. Finally, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s plans for toxic bank debt haven’t hurt neither has his rock star boss’ concert tour of Europe.

My point, the markets and the media are digesting a lot of new news. Much of which will change the rules that Big Pharma had been playing by until recently. First, share prices will rise. Those deals won’t be looking so good to shareholders. Next, government is getting more involved with American business management. Industries and their companies should be expecting their own phone calls from Washington if they get into trouble. Or, maybe executives’ pay will just seem too exorbitant when politicians are just trying to make more drugs more affordable to more people who can’t afford them. Finally, Big Pharma has nothing new to say. As Larry and I have blogged repeatedly, this is an industry that could be the next Big Auto.

So, where has everybody gone? I believe that they’ve gone to ground looking for cover. First quarter earnings are due out soon. Annual shareholders’ meetings will be taking place. I still don’t think that there will be much good news. You can only get away with saying that you’re doing better than General Motors for so long.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Wow - What a Week for Pharma M&A and Our Opinions on What's What

Larry and I have been blogging a lot recently about the Pfizer/Wyeth merger and some other possibilities. I want to spend a little more time because I think that it’s fundamental to what’s happening in Big Pharma right now. Also, with Tom Daschle dropping out of consideration for a Cabinet post, President Obama won’t be able to start his agenda for U.S. healthcare policy for a while, so we have some time to focus on M&A activity in the BioPharmaceutical Sector.

While I’m still not a big believer in the sense or economics of mergers in the drug industry, they sure generate a lot of ink in the press. (Or, are they are electrons in the age of blogs? I’m having a difficult time adapting my metaphors to the Internet age.) I get the reasons, falling stock prices, lots of cash on drug company balance sheets, and CEO’s desperate to do anything to appear to be adding growth to the top line. Also, the lack of any real news seems to engender a lot of wishful thinking out there in the media.

Here’s one example. Jim Cramer over at CNBC recently blogged (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28813740 ) about the possibility of a merger between Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Celera (NYSE: CRA). Seems that Abbott’s CEO, Miles White, has been talking about the possibility of acquisitions (But then don’t CEO’s always talk about this? This is Guy’s Third Rule of Being a CEO.), and they are both already working together in the area of personalized medicine. Jim admits freely that he is only speculating here, but, given the article in Barron’s which came out today chiding him about his track record in making predictions, I don’t think I’ll put much into this one. I did find Jim’s summary of personalized medicine interesting and I’ll return to this in a future blog.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckman is keeping hopes alive over at his blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29014145 ) about the possibility of Roche (SWX Europe: ROG) acquiring Genentech (NYSE: DNA) in a hostile takeover. This was his second prediction for the pharmaceutical industry in 2009. Now, I’m not picking on Mike. I have a lot of respect for him. But, looking at his photo on his blog, I think I can safely say that I’m a few years older than him. OK, maybe more than a few years. Anyway, my point is that since 1976 when Robert Swanson and Dr. Herbert Boyer launched Genentech, I’ve been hearing people talk about a hostile takeover. It’s a perennial. Also, as I’ve blogged before, this kind of deal doesn’t make sense to me.

This week, Merck's (NYSE: MRK) CEO, Richard Clark stepped back from their long standing high and mighty point of view against mergers and "hinted" (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/03/as-sales-slump-merck-ceo-clark-looks-to-acquisitions/ ) by saying “I don’t think any CEO in this environment can categorically rule out any transaction,” Clark said, according to Dow Jones Newswires. “There are opportunities across the whole spectrum we would look at.” We're not that clear on the position Andrew Witty, Glaxo's new CEO is taking first saying that there will be no acquisitions, and then suggesting "bolt-ons" and then suggesting that acquisitions will take a prominent role as Glaxo looks to back away from the traditional big pharma "Blockbuster" model and move further into consumer, vaccine and emerging markets (http://www.natap.org/2009/newsUpdates/010909_05.htm ). It may be of some interest that almost simultaneously and representing only about 1% of the value of the Pfizer-Wyeth deal, Glaxo acquired UCB's emerging market business for $687 million. In the meanwhile, Astellas launched a $1 billion hostile tender for CV Therapeutics (http://www.dealmakersforum.com/) and rumors continue to abound about a potential BristolMyers-Squibb-Sanofi hook up. Quite a week!

Other possibilities exist including Carl Icahn's continuing pursuit of "enhancing shareholder value" (e.g. sale to a Big Pharma company) at Biogen-Idec . That’s the fun thing about this kind of market, anyone can speculate about anything, even me. Let’s see what happens, I think that this is going to be a very interesting year.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

The Pfizer-Wyeth Merger - We Were Wrong – They are WRONGER

OK, I was wrong, but there is no mea culpa needed. The Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Wyeth (NYSE: WFE) deal has been announced and somehow financing was arranged. The hubbub in the media seems to support my opinion that this a bad deal for Pfizer’s shareholders, especially if you’re one of the 19,000+ employees who will likely lose their job in this deal. (Wanna bet that after President Obama gets through bashing banks for paying out $18 billion in TARP funds for bonuses, he’ll be setting his sights on Big Pharma.) Although, Jeff Kindler may still be trying to put a positive spin on things. Jeff better be good at spin meistering with a 50% reduction in Pfizer’s dividend-anyone notice that after an initial run up, both PFE and WYE retreated rather significantly based on some on Wall Street who don't view this merger as a layup after all.

Mike Huckman’s been busy doing the post-game review on this deal. Check out his blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ), in particular, his January 27th and 28th blogs. He offers some interesting perspectives and also links to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the deal. Other than the companies themselves and their hired flacks, I haven’t come across any serious commentators who think that this is a good deal.

I’m going to keep sticking my neck out on this one though. The virulent press reaction and Kindler’s ability to keep the financing together for this deal are my two main reasons.

First, the press reaction. Pfizer is simply buying revenue (at a very high price we add) to offset its looming loss of Lipitor to the generics. Kindler’s been trying to keep his job and has been shuffling assets around in a corporate finance version of three card monte. More people are going to be looking at this deal and start questioning it. I don’t expect anyone to be riding to the rescue with a counteroffer. Anybody remember Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) and Guidant? Let’s see, how many billions in overvalued assets did Boston write off the other day? Many pundits (and we agree) think that Pfizer would have been far better off buying several biotechnology companies (e.g., Biogen-Idec, Gilead, Genzyme or as we have advocated Amgen all would have helped) and why justify re-entering the Consumer business when two years ago, Kindler and company claimed they were selling the Pfizer Consumer business to J&J (NYSE: JNJ) so they could "focus' on Pharmaceuticals.

Next, let’s talk about that bank financing. I haven’t come across any details about which financial institutions or investors are behind the $22.5 billion in external financing or its terms. In these times of credit crisis, I’m sure that they are very interesting. By the way, another $47.5 billion will come from internal financing. One commentator noted that Pfizer would probably have to repatriate offshore cash to help with the deal. I suspect that this could mean paying US corporate taxes. Again, not a great deal for shareholders. Given the lack of value that deal produces along with the job losses noted above, I wonder if banks might start rethinking their loan arrangements. Sooner or later, Washington, DC is going to start asking what’s happening with all the money being forked over to the financial services sector. Executive bonuses and job losses don’t seem like a good return for taxpayers’ money. Somebody’s going to start paying attention here.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Satyam: Are the Outsourcers Melting Down Next?

Lately, I’ve been a little frustrated that I couldn’t blog about the Bernie Madoff scandal. (Actually, I could have but Larry said I’d just have to find another blog to do it at. He’s a stickler for staying focused.) Of course, I can look at poor Mike Huckman over at CNBC standing outside Federal court houses in the cold and rain during the Holidays waiting for a glimpse of the accused and console myself with being inside warm and safe. But, now, I may have a fraud of my very own to blog about. Granted, Satyam is a not a life sciences company but it does service them and there may be implications here.
Let’s start with the fundamentals of outsourcing. Essentially, commodity functions that are considered to be non-core activities are transferred to an outside vendor. The idea is that a vendor can take advantage of economies of scale and through continual process improvements to become best in class or the next best thing and make its money by spending far less to perform these services than is coming in. The problem is that classic economic theory teaches us that unusually high profits bring in more competition driving down prices and profits. And, this is where the fun starts. (And, this is where the hedge funds got into trouble.) It becomes increasingly difficult to post those double digit profit gains year over year when there’s more competition. Also, there’s one other aspect that most commentators miss. The early outsourcers got the easy deals, simple processes, large volumes, and low capital investment required. Those salad days are long gone now. So, a firm which is trying to support its stock price either to maintain executive compensation or values for future acquisitions starts to look at questionable practices for what they justify will be a short time. But, once down that slippery slope as probably happened to Bernie Madoff, there’s no going back. It takes a lot to avoid this temptation. Unfortunately, for Satyam, B Ramalinga Raju couldn’t resist temptation. Apparently, Raju overstated Satyam’s to 20 per cent from 3 per cent. I’ll hazard that the latter is more the norm for outsourcers than not these days.
One writer has described this financial scandal cum crisis as “India’s Enron”. What will happen to all those customers who have outsourced those back offices to Satyam? Now, I don’t know if any significant percentage of Satyam’s business came from life sciences, but, I think this could put a chill on future outsourcing deals. Looking at their website (http://www.satyam.com/industries/life_sciences/index.asp ) they appear to offer a fairly broad array of services in the life sciences sector. Coming so soon after the Mumbai terror attacks back in November this won’t be good for the Indian outsourcers. I also suspect that life sciences companies who had been planning to outsource their operations and reduce their costs while they were at it will now be having some second thoughts.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.


Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Contrarianism Lives!

There seems to have been a lot of writing recently about the lack of merger activity and what may be possible. Amgen seems to be getting a bit of ink too, but, then that one always seems to. First, Julie MacIntosh of the Financial Times published an interesting piece (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/57ccbec6-db91-11dd-be53-000077b07658.html ) concerning this subject on their website this January 6th. Her take was that the mergers and acquisitions market would be slow in coming back as companies assess risks and investment advisors want to appear cautious in recommending deals. Earlier in the week, Andrew Jack, also of the Financial Times speculated (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20d8f19e-da8a-11dd-8c28-000077b07658.html ) about Pfizer entering into a large acquisition of a rival and what it might lead to in a pharmaceutical industry shying away from the large deals that spawned many of today’s Big Pharma companies. His musings were based on comments by Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s CEO. He noted debates in the investment community about Pfizer acquiring Amgen. (CNBC had also reported this story.) As I wrote earlier, that’s an old story heard many times before.
What I find interesting here is how from very substance, a lot of speculation is going on. As I blogged earlier, I don’t think there is much of a market for large deals in the pharmaceutical industry right now. I find myself more in agreement with Julie MacIntosh about deal prospects in the industry. That is, the length and breadth of this recession will determine people’s willingness to return to the deal markets. Like I wrote earlier, she quotes Mark Shafir, the global mergers and acquisitions head at Citibank, who believes that bankrupt or near bankrupt companies will provide the first wave of opportunities. He goes further saying that cash rich companies may then begin to prowl for values. But, all this will take time. While these activities may start this year, I don’t think that they will culminate in any significant deal activity until 2010 at the earliest.
I know that some people have been writing about 2009 being the big year for drug company acquisitions. I’m just not buying into it. Let’s see what comes of these vaunted pipelines. Let’s see what happens when a President Obama instructs Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the drug companies. (I’ve always found it interesting that when corporations squeeze their vendors for lower costs, it’s capitalism; when the government does it, it’s Marxism.) As this blog has repeatedly said over the last year, there is too much capacity in the drug industry. Whatever deals happen this year will be restructurings designed to handle this fundamental problem.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.


Contributed by Guy de Lastin

Follow-up Interview with Ken Kam (Part 1)

Last month, Larry and I had the opportunity to interview Ken Kam of Marketocracy (www.marketocracy.com) about the drug industry and Elan Corporation PLC, currently conducting clinical trials on a drug, Tysabri, which could be used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, in particular. Ken predicted a bright future for Elan. Then came two pieces of bad news and Elan’s price came down 60% from its recent high.

Larry and I wanted to follow up with Ken and talk about what happened and what he thinks about Elan’s future. Ken graciously made himself available for us recently and what follows is a summary of our conversation.

When we asked Ken what happened, he replied that these things happen when a company’s value is tied up in clinical trial data, because a lot of investors react to just the headline He feels that when the dust settles people will have a different view when they look at the data. The confidence level for the trial results was at 92% instead of the expected 95%. But, despite trial data showing drug safety and being very close to efficacy at the top level, the stock began moving downward. That was the first piece of bad news. Then came the second.

An announcement came out later indicating that twelve cases of vascular edema and three deaths. As Ken put it, although the three deaths were unrelated to the trial and the cases of vascular edema were safely resolved, unexpected deaths and complications are never good when associated with clinical trial results. (Although, recently neither Ken nor Larry could retrieve that news item.) However, Ken feels that CNBC got the story right in Mike Huckman’s broadcast where he differentiated between those trial participants who had the gene for the disease and those who didn’t. The results for both groups would obviously be different which Huckman got but the market didn’t follow his lead. As the bad news was coming from a medical conference, Ken said, it is very important and can really drive the stock. And, in this case, a lot of people piled on. In addition, there were two cases of PML from the users of Tysabri in Europe. Although it looks like both patients will survive, one is already home from the hospital, PML can be deadly.

Ken went on to say that investors need to look past the headlines and get into the specifics to understand what’s going on. Analysts can be off the mark with knee jerk reactions. It takes a long time for a drug to build a reputation. In Ken’s opinion, Bapineuzumab warrants going to Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are to determine safety and how to dose. Phase 3 results are the ones that really count.

Ken told us that 14,000 patients have been taking Tysabri for over a year. 30,000 patients are now currently taking the drug. He believes that Tysabri is more effective than any other drug on the market for treating multiple sclerosis. His opinion is based on his review of the clinical trial results as well as from members of his online investment community at www.marketocracy.com.

I’m stopping here for now. I’ll continue our interview with Ken Kam in my next blog which will be posted in two days. In it, Ken will talk about his opinions on Elan’s future and another opportunity in the pharmaceutical sector.

As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.

Contributed by Guy de Lastin