teknobucks
Active member
imported post
try again rolo....tinyurl saves the day!
try again rolo....tinyurl saves the day!
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Market Talk Page
- Thread starter teknobucks
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
U.S. troop casualties in Iraq should drop this year as soldiers move to better-protected bases.
Seems like we are not leaving soon?
U.S. troop casualties in Iraq should drop this year as soldiers move to better-protected bases.
Seems like we are not leaving soon?
Show-me
Well-known member
imported post
Dr_Dubious wrote:
How soon after the fighting stopped did we move out of Germany, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Cuba, Spain, Italy, U.K., and so on. We will be there in some way to help with security, to train, or as a show of support for the fledgling democracy. The people in power now don’t want to give it up. So, we won’t be leavening for quite some time.
Dr_Dubious wrote:
How soon after the fighting stopped did we move out of Germany, Japan, Philippines, Korea, Cuba, Spain, Italy, U.K., and so on. We will be there in some way to help with security, to train, or as a show of support for the fledgling democracy. The people in power now don’t want to give it up. So, we won’t be leavening for quite some time.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Show-me wrote:
Show-me wrote:
Heehee. What about Afghanistan? No one even remembers that we're over there.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Cuba? PDQ.
What article in our constitution does it state; invasion of a foreign country to promote democracy?
We are building four hardened long term bases. It appears we will be shifting forces from Japan, Korea and Germany there. Wonder why? All Empires fail.
Cuba? PDQ.
What article in our constitution does it state; invasion of a foreign country to promote democracy?
We are building four hardened long term bases. It appears we will be shifting forces from Japan, Korea and Germany there. Wonder why? All Empires fail.
teknobucks
Active member
teknobucks
Active member
imported post
Rolo wrote:
the house of cards would fall:s
Rolo wrote:
more effect on bonds and real estate.....any collaspe here would scare the hell out of stox big time.
the house of cards would fall:s
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Dr_Dubious wrote:
And our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is making Vietnam and Korea look like sideshows. I fear that, when it is all over, we will have far more injuries and deaths as a result of our latest incursions than from the other two mini-wars combined.
Dr_Dubious wrote:
In our quest to clear the world of terrorists, I fear that we have made 10x more.
And our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is making Vietnam and Korea look like sideshows. I fear that, when it is all over, we will have far more injuries and deaths as a result of our latest incursions than from the other two mini-wars combined.
teknobucks
Active member
imported post
anyone buy MRK???
anyone buy MRK???
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
teknobucks wrote:
Merck faces hurdles on its victory lap
Lawsuits and regulation likely to slow Vioxx's return to market
Sunday, February 20, 2005
BY ED SILVERMAN Star-Ledger Staff
At first blush, the news appeared to be a huge win for Merck.
On Friday, a government panel unexpectedly recommended Vioxx could return to pharmacy shelves. This came only five months after Merck withdrew the painkiller based on links to heart attacks and strokes.
The decision sent Merck's stock soaring 13 percent. And it gave the company a sorely needed respite from gloomy signals emanating from its boardroom and laboratories.
Yet, experts say Merck shouldn't plan an extensive celebration. The Whitehouse Station drug maker still faces regulatory hurdles before Vioxx is prescribed again, plus a large number of lawsuits, and a credibility gap with some doctors and patients.
"This decision is certainly a positive and it sure beats the alternatives, such as not being able to market Vioxx," David Webster, a pharmaceutical-industry consultant, said. "But it doesn't change the significant challenges facing the company."
Indeed, Merck is grappling with much more than Vioxx. The company is facing a product pipeline that is running dry, impending loss of patent protection on several huge-selling drugs and ongoing concerns about a successor to its near-retirement chief executive, Ray Gilmartin.
"The underlying strength of their business continues to be poor," said C.J. Sylvester, a pharmaceutical-industry analyst at Banc of America Securities. "And Vioxx, after all, will never be a multibillion-dollar seller again."
To garner any sales, Merck must negotiate with the Food and Drug Administration, which usually follows panel recommendations. However, the panel's narrow 17-to-15 vote in favor of Vioxx suggests the FDA may not automatically follow along.
Even if the agency does make Vioxx available, the FDA will likely issue restrictions, such as how Merck can promote the painkiller. Between 1999 and last fall, Merck spent more than $500 million on direct-to-consumer advertising on Vioxx, which boosted prescriptions.
The panel urged the FDA to issue a black-box warning, which is used to alert doctors to serious side effects. This type of warning makes it difficult for drug makers to promote their products and can also dampen doctor enthusiasm for writing prescriptions.
Such a warning was endorsed for all Cox-2 painkillers, including Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra. The panel reached this conclusion after reviewing a mountain of clinical- trial data showing the entire class of drugs raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes for certain patients.
Merck didn't immediately reveal whether it plans to try and return Vioxx to the market. In a brief statement, Merck officials -- who repeatedly argued Vioxx is the only Cox-2 painkiller to protect the stomach -- said they look forward to working with the FDA.
Nonetheless, any FDA-imposed restrictions will mean Merck is unlikely to recapture sizable Vioxx sales.
What is potentially more significant, analysts say, is the possibility of reducing legal liability that Wall Street estimates could reach $30 billion. The drug maker faces about 600 lawsuits filed by patients who claimed they were harmed by Vioxx. Now, Merck officials hope to be in a better position to argue an independent panel of experts effectively endorsed the drug.
But one lawyer disagreed. While such an endorsement may help, the vote was narrow. And the FDA panel was shown data indicating Vioxx caused heart risks much earlier than previously thought. And Merck will have to prove those signals weren't ignored.
"This is a whitewash," Christopher Seeger, a lawyer who represents patients in New Jersey litigation, said. "Even if Vioxx were reintroduced with a black-box warning, it would only confirm the dangers Merck has known existed since 1996."
Merck will also have to regain the confidence of some doctors and patients. Since withdrawing Vioxx in September, there was considerable publicity that Merck may have downplayed safety risks. As a result, one expert said doctors and patients may be leery.
"For Merck, this is a tricky issue," Carol Scarborough, a Rutgers University marketing professor, said. "They have a responsibility to sound out physicians. Would they feel safe in prescribing it? And would consumers buy it?"
Some doctors, though, said they welcome the possibility Vioxx may become available again. In fact, a few said they were concerned Merck may have acted too quickly when it pulled the painkiller, because Vioxx helped their patients.
"The drug should have never been pulled to begin with," Robert Lahita, a rheumatologist at Jersey City Medical Center, said. He said he urged Merck executives two weeks ago to consider making Vioxx available again.
"Physicians are not stupid, and we can certainly screen our patients for heart disease, hypertension and major risk factors for stroke," he said. "We do that everyday."
teknobucks wrote:
It sure is cheap. Selling at 1996 prices. However, there are so many Vioxx lawsuits coming down the pike that I wouldn' t touch it.anyone buy MRK???
Merck faces hurdles on its victory lap
Lawsuits and regulation likely to slow Vioxx's return to market
Sunday, February 20, 2005
BY ED SILVERMAN Star-Ledger Staff
At first blush, the news appeared to be a huge win for Merck.
On Friday, a government panel unexpectedly recommended Vioxx could return to pharmacy shelves. This came only five months after Merck withdrew the painkiller based on links to heart attacks and strokes.
The decision sent Merck's stock soaring 13 percent. And it gave the company a sorely needed respite from gloomy signals emanating from its boardroom and laboratories.
Yet, experts say Merck shouldn't plan an extensive celebration. The Whitehouse Station drug maker still faces regulatory hurdles before Vioxx is prescribed again, plus a large number of lawsuits, and a credibility gap with some doctors and patients.
"This decision is certainly a positive and it sure beats the alternatives, such as not being able to market Vioxx," David Webster, a pharmaceutical-industry consultant, said. "But it doesn't change the significant challenges facing the company."
Indeed, Merck is grappling with much more than Vioxx. The company is facing a product pipeline that is running dry, impending loss of patent protection on several huge-selling drugs and ongoing concerns about a successor to its near-retirement chief executive, Ray Gilmartin.
"The underlying strength of their business continues to be poor," said C.J. Sylvester, a pharmaceutical-industry analyst at Banc of America Securities. "And Vioxx, after all, will never be a multibillion-dollar seller again."
To garner any sales, Merck must negotiate with the Food and Drug Administration, which usually follows panel recommendations. However, the panel's narrow 17-to-15 vote in favor of Vioxx suggests the FDA may not automatically follow along.
Even if the agency does make Vioxx available, the FDA will likely issue restrictions, such as how Merck can promote the painkiller. Between 1999 and last fall, Merck spent more than $500 million on direct-to-consumer advertising on Vioxx, which boosted prescriptions.
The panel urged the FDA to issue a black-box warning, which is used to alert doctors to serious side effects. This type of warning makes it difficult for drug makers to promote their products and can also dampen doctor enthusiasm for writing prescriptions.
Such a warning was endorsed for all Cox-2 painkillers, including Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra. The panel reached this conclusion after reviewing a mountain of clinical- trial data showing the entire class of drugs raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes for certain patients.
Merck didn't immediately reveal whether it plans to try and return Vioxx to the market. In a brief statement, Merck officials -- who repeatedly argued Vioxx is the only Cox-2 painkiller to protect the stomach -- said they look forward to working with the FDA.
Nonetheless, any FDA-imposed restrictions will mean Merck is unlikely to recapture sizable Vioxx sales.
What is potentially more significant, analysts say, is the possibility of reducing legal liability that Wall Street estimates could reach $30 billion. The drug maker faces about 600 lawsuits filed by patients who claimed they were harmed by Vioxx. Now, Merck officials hope to be in a better position to argue an independent panel of experts effectively endorsed the drug.
But one lawyer disagreed. While such an endorsement may help, the vote was narrow. And the FDA panel was shown data indicating Vioxx caused heart risks much earlier than previously thought. And Merck will have to prove those signals weren't ignored.
"This is a whitewash," Christopher Seeger, a lawyer who represents patients in New Jersey litigation, said. "Even if Vioxx were reintroduced with a black-box warning, it would only confirm the dangers Merck has known existed since 1996."
Merck will also have to regain the confidence of some doctors and patients. Since withdrawing Vioxx in September, there was considerable publicity that Merck may have downplayed safety risks. As a result, one expert said doctors and patients may be leery.
"For Merck, this is a tricky issue," Carol Scarborough, a Rutgers University marketing professor, said. "They have a responsibility to sound out physicians. Would they feel safe in prescribing it? And would consumers buy it?"
Some doctors, though, said they welcome the possibility Vioxx may become available again. In fact, a few said they were concerned Merck may have acted too quickly when it pulled the painkiller, because Vioxx helped their patients.
"The drug should have never been pulled to begin with," Robert Lahita, a rheumatologist at Jersey City Medical Center, said. He said he urged Merck executives two weeks ago to consider making Vioxx available again.
"Physicians are not stupid, and we can certainly screen our patients for heart disease, hypertension and major risk factors for stroke," he said. "We do that everyday."
teknobucks
Active member
imported post
you know sara, sometimes i wonder if the whole thing was not just a ploy for some folks to steal shares from the sheep.:dude:
*wish i knew someone at fda who would talk over a few beers
****what was it ....one in one thousand that had problems with vioxx. gee whizone in one thousand have problems with apples or oranges for pete's sake!!....LOL
tekno
you know sara, sometimes i wonder if the whole thing was not just a ploy for some folks to steal shares from the sheep.:dude:
*wish i knew someone at fda who would talk over a few beers
****what was it ....one in one thousand that had problems with vioxx. gee whizone in one thousand have problems with apples or oranges for pete's sake!!....LOL
tekno
imported post
Dr_Dubious wrote:
Are you kidding. Read the constitution some time. Or, perhaps just the pre-amble, (sp).
"We the people in order to form a more perfect union....to provide for the common defense...
Make no mistake about it. Every state in the union was won or purchased though blood. We eather fought a war and won or another country sold it because they were at war and needed the money. Alaska may be an exception. Have to check the history books on that, It's beena while. That is why we need to remember and honor those people who died serving this country.
Oh, by the way all Empires fall. Hmm. Kind of true. Lets ask England though. They seem to have done well enough all points considered. Yes they were a great Empire. We will not always be at the top of the poll. We need to change somethings to protect our country. I have even heard it said that- We have the worst goverment around, Accept, for all the rest. Simply put, no goverment is good ,but, we have the Best Around. I have had family die serving this country and my family has lost a lot protecting it.
Sorry to all the rest of you out there. I did not mean to get on my soap box. I do not agree with all we do. I felt compeled to respond though.:u
Dr_Dubious wrote:
Are you kidding. Read the constitution some time. Or, perhaps just the pre-amble, (sp).
"We the people in order to form a more perfect union....to provide for the common defense...
Make no mistake about it. Every state in the union was won or purchased though blood. We eather fought a war and won or another country sold it because they were at war and needed the money. Alaska may be an exception. Have to check the history books on that, It's beena while. That is why we need to remember and honor those people who died serving this country.
Oh, by the way all Empires fall. Hmm. Kind of true. Lets ask England though. They seem to have done well enough all points considered. Yes they were a great Empire. We will not always be at the top of the poll. We need to change somethings to protect our country. I have even heard it said that- We have the worst goverment around, Accept, for all the rest. Simply put, no goverment is good ,but, we have the Best Around. I have had family die serving this country and my family has lost a lot protecting it.
Sorry to all the rest of you out there. I did not mean to get on my soap box. I do not agree with all we do. I felt compeled to respond though.:u
teknobucks
Active member
imported post
expect similar road to be followed soonwith the statin drugs.
A-1 milano is the way to go after high colesterol...the FDA needs to be removed from any political influence. Gene and stem cell research is a no brainer....if we fall behind because of these religiously driven politicians it's our loss in a major way!
expect similar road to be followed soonwith the statin drugs.
A-1 milano is the way to go after high colesterol...the FDA needs to be removed from any political influence. Gene and stem cell research is a no brainer....if we fall behind because of these religiously driven politicians it's our loss in a major way!
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
teknobucks wrote:
teknobucks wrote:
I believe Mr Bubbles comments that Freddie and Sallie portfolios need to be adjusted on the hill last week will not be helpful. Bubbles was talking about the D word. Dereviates - that is the house of cards. Get out of REITs and sell property. The FOMC minutes released on the 23rd should be a real chiller.
imported post
saraho wrote:
The news has been awful and as saraho says, the lawsuits are just starting. BUT the worst is probablypriced into the share price already. From a sentiment perspective, you'd have to wonder who still owns MRK at this point. Answer, the people who don't plan tosell. If there are no sellers, the only way to go is up. That is over simplifying it but that is how things work. We saw it with tobacco companies. The prices bounce around but the downside is usually exaggerated on the bad news and it sets up buying opportunities because eventually the sellers dry up.
This is not a buy recommendation, just another perspective. I don't own nor plan to own MRK in the near future.
saraho wrote:
I know nothing about this stock from a technical or a fundamental standpoint but let me approach it from the psychological angle.teknobucks wrote:It sure is cheap. Selling at 1996 prices. However, there are so many Vioxx lawsuits coming down the pike that I wouldn' t touch it.anyone buy MRK???
The news has been awful and as saraho says, the lawsuits are just starting. BUT the worst is probablypriced into the share price already. From a sentiment perspective, you'd have to wonder who still owns MRK at this point. Answer, the people who don't plan tosell. If there are no sellers, the only way to go is up. That is over simplifying it but that is how things work. We saw it with tobacco companies. The prices bounce around but the downside is usually exaggerated on the bad news and it sets up buying opportunities because eventually the sellers dry up.
This is not a buy recommendation, just another perspective. I don't own nor plan to own MRK in the near future.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
saraho wrote:
Here is whatlast week looks like (it is very sad to me) - I do not count them up because I can't but there is about 25 deaths this week nearly 4 A DAY, I am sure the badly injured is 4 to 5 times that:
[align=left]DoD Identifies Army Casualties
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Awards $43.9 Million to Universities for Research Equipment
02/17/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/17/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/17/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/17/2005:
DoD Information Technology Leadership Recognized
02/16/2005:
General Officer Announcements
02/16/2005:
Flag Officer Announcements
02/16/2005:
National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of February 16, 2005
02/15/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualties
02/15/2005:
Navy to Commission Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter
02/15/2005:
DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
02/14/2005:
Pentagon Police Officer Dies from Injuries
02/14/2005:
DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty
02/14/2005:
Department of Defense Announces Contract Reviews
02/13/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/13/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/13/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/11/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/11/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/11/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty[/align]
saraho wrote:
I agree! The "bring it on comment" is a great recruiting tool. Also saying your going to go in wipe something out (Fallasha) and then three days do a flip flop and let it go (with regards to the 4 contractors drag through town, burn to a crisp and hung from a bridge and beaten with a stick) shows weakness. If you have every lived there if you do not do what you say and follow through you may as lay down and show your belly and hand then a knife to gut you with. After not going in there and cleaning it up but give the "insurgents" over a month to beat feet was when things really got bad. I read the dod press releases and it is looking really bad when compared to this time last year:
Here is whatlast week looks like (it is very sad to me) - I do not count them up because I can't but there is about 25 deaths this week nearly 4 A DAY, I am sure the badly injured is 4 to 5 times that:
[align=left]DoD Identifies Army Casualties
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/18/2005:
DoD Awards $43.9 Million to Universities for Research Equipment
02/17/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/17/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/17/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/17/2005:
DoD Information Technology Leadership Recognized
02/16/2005:
General Officer Announcements
02/16/2005:
Flag Officer Announcements
02/16/2005:
National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of February 16, 2005
02/15/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualties
02/15/2005:
Navy to Commission Attack Submarine Jimmy Carter
02/15/2005:
DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
02/14/2005:
Pentagon Police Officer Dies from Injuries
02/14/2005:
DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty
02/14/2005:
Department of Defense Announces Contract Reviews
02/13/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/13/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/13/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/11/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/11/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty
02/11/2005:
DoD Identifies Army Casualty[/align]
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
learning wrote:
learning wrote:
I appreciate your response, however you need to understand our constitution DOESNOT allowing for invading countries we do not agree with them not having elections and being religious based. Forcing democracy on everyone else is not in our charter. Other countries such as China could start invading countries because they feel they need to promote communism. Australia should start feeling nervous with all their nature resources. Respond but some folks have studied history and constitution law.
Similar threads
