These are big ticket practices too. Expect scripts to increase substantially in the coming weeks! They are converting 100% of Lovaza users over the next couple months. We estimate 3000 patients in total!!
Just won two high profile clinics over to V!!
- Thread starter Anonymous
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
LMAO... oh, i think i have died and gone to heaven$$$$$$$$$$$
We need a plague to come through and remove your genetics from the universe.
you sure are angry about our success. i thought we were on the same team. You are a pharma rep selling Vascepa, right?
Why would i declare bankruptcy when I'm making money hand over fist selling V? Oh, you're still talking stocks. ... sorry, i forgot you aren't a pharma rep.
No problem, nobody will forget that you aren't a rep.
So nobody will forget that "Anonymous" is not a pharma rep on a cafepharma board? LMAO...
oh man, i haven't laughed this hard in a long time. Wall Street just isn't willing to pay for smart people to do this bashing gig. hahaha
Excellent news!!!
I have a major clinic added in the Boston area. Big volume!
Not often does a drug come along that is so easy to sell. Seems the momentum is building.
Hey... i hope I do as well. There are a few big practices I'm going to visit on my first week. I already have close relationships with the physicians.
Isn't it irritating to see the stock pumpers posting crap on the board.
Just hilarious how the silly moron keeps acting like he is different reps, all in an attempt to pump a crappy stock. Go away and leave the discussion to REAL reps.
It's actually comical! The PR machine is getting desperate at Amarin! I guess it's rather discouraging to get your asses handed to you by GSK reps. Doctors don't want to switch to an inferior product!!!
so where is the "REAL" discussion? Tell me how many scripts are coming out of your assigned territory? What feedback are you hearing from dr's? Let me guess.
If all you guys have to offer is "Vascepa is inferior." "AMRN Mgt doesn't care." "Lay offs!", "AMRN is a joke" etc...then you'll never convince anyone that you are real reps. Like your mind, your con is too simplistic. One quick browse through this board and it's nothing but you trolls. Then a couple real reps show up to inform the world that the sky isn't falling and you morons get all stirred up like monkeys in rattled cages. LOL
I think this is my new hobby. For fun I like to torture a bunch of lying buffoons by exposing their con. Come aboard reps, one and all, join the fun!!!
Ok let's play!
What is Vascepa indicated for?
Severe Trigs? Ok you lose. There is no competitor Vascepa can beat at teig lowerong, because they all have superior efficacy for that indication.
Thanks for making my point. You guys aren't equipped to pull off your con. You probably have quota's that make it impossible to get much deeper than "There is no competitor Vascepa can beat at teig lowerong". OMG... I can't even believe I'm interacting with these people...but, I think it's important to show everyone who visits this board that you can't trust what you see in the subject lines. Wall Street has hired the equivalent of 6th graders who can't go much beyond the subject line when you engage them. Clearly not pharma reps. In fact, i doubt you'll see reps on this board all day because we're actually working. So I'm not sure what purpose this 'forum' serves, quite honestly.
Lastly, to address our friend's question (which he couldn't answer sufficiently) Vascepa is indicated to address triglyceride levels in adult patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia (≥ 500 mg/dL) .
As far as efficacy, you can dig into the science on our publications site:
http://www.amarincorp.com/publications.html
As far as competitor comparisons go see slide 7 in this deck:
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...7/Amarin_Investor_Presentation_April_2013.pdf
This is what fact sharing looks like. You trolls should try it. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to highlight V while also exposing your fraud.
Now, I'm off to sell, sell, SELLLLLLL!!!
Thanks for throwing up all the unapproved information you have. Sure you are are rep that's about to go sell something too!
Nice cherry picking TG baseline levels to imply better reductions. Nice placebo adjusted figures too. Who cares what placebo is doing. Doctors aren't prescribing placebos. And 25% of approved efficacy data was on statin therapy???
Here is the APPROVED data from the package insert, NOT placebo adjusted and it is WEAK!
Vascepa
TG % change. -27.
LDL. -5
NonHdl -8
TC -7
HDL -4 yes it made the good cholesterol worse!
VLDL -20
I think oatmeal and Cherrios can do better!
Oh and the OTHER RX omega 3 with the same indication.
TG -45
Non Hdl -14
TC -10
VLDL - 42
HDL -9
LDL +45
And this is with ZERO statins to taint the numbers!
+45 LDL-C, wow...that's kind of scary. And what about the warning on Afib? You didn't mention that.
Also, your sample size was only 42?? 42!!! Have you ever heard of margin of error or confidence interval? I'm sure you have but GSK conveniently didn't share it in the Lovaza package insert like AMRN did in the Vascepa insert. Even with AMRN's sample of 76 patients, the confidence interval on the -27 point estimate is (-22 to -47). That means that if we were to evaluate results once a year and we kept using 76 patients, we would see that point estimate fall anywhere in the range of -22 to -47 at least 95% of the time.
Now, GSK used roughly 1/2 the sample size. The precision of their efficacy estimates would be roughly half as accurate as AMRN's. The confidence interval is so bad that they didn't share it! In other words, we can't trust the figures you provided to represent reality. What we can do is trust the direction of the data and that is that it raises LDL-C, causes Afib, and tastes like fish. Also, Doctors can trust the results they see in patients. Since we can't trust the precision of your data, I encourage dr's to trust results. Try Vascepa on patients who are on Lovaza and you will find that they see additive benefits!
Why are you on AMRN's board? I'm not on GSK's board. We have them worried folks!
btw AMRN reps... we just heard GSK's angle. They pull the package insert and point to the ESTIMATED change to baselines. We need to highlight that we share confidence intervals and they don't. You can use the thoughts I shared above on how to approach that conversation.
If we were to take that same small sample of 42 that GSK used and conduct the study again what would it show? The confidence parameters are likely very wide so the next time we might see -10. the time after that we might see -80. the time after that we might see -20. FDA approved because the lower range of their wide confidence margins met the study end points. But i'd like to see what that lower limit is but they didn't share it on their insert. I'll have to dig it up.
I think you see where I'm going...the best way to make a comparison is for the Dr to try V on patients who are currently on L. They can evaluate the REAL results and then decide which to prescribe.
If we were to take that same small sample of 42 that GSK used and conduct the study again what would it show? The confidence parameters are likely very wide so the next time we might see -10. the time after that we might see -80. the time after that we might see -20. FDA approved because the lower range of their wide confidence margins met the study end points. But i'd like to see what that lower limit is but they didn't share it on their insert. I'll have to dig it up.
I think you see where I'm going...the best way to make a comparison is for the Dr to try V on patients who are currently on L. They can evaluate the REAL results and then decide which to prescribe.