The original Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was, at the time, a bold step forward. It effectively abolished the patent medicine and meat-packing frauds that, thanks to sensational journalism, had been the main causes of the public pressure which led to eventual reform. The act prohibited adulterated or misbranded drugs but did not deal with the safety or efficacy of the drugs themselves. Those matters were really not addressed for a third of a century.
In the late 1930s, public opinion was again mobilized, this time by the Elixir-of-Sulfanilamide tragedy in which more than 100 persons were fatally poisoned by a newly marketed drug product.1
As a result, the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed. It required that all drugs sold in this country be proven safe. This act was subsequently amended in 1962. Since the Drug Amendments of 1962 followed extensive congressional investigations of the drug industry led by Senator Estes Kefauver, they are still commonly referred to as the Kefauver-Harris Amendments. They required that all drugs marketed in the United States after 1962 be proven both safe and effective.
The procedure used since 1938 to ensure new drug safety was known as a New Drug Application. That title soon became abbreviated to NDA. Something now had to be done so that those drugs already proven safe through the NDA mechanism were also proven effective. Approximately 4,000 different drug formulations, representing about 300 different chemical entities, fell into the category of drugs actually being sold, and another 3,000 formulations were covered by NDAs but were not actively marketed.
Lacking the resources to tackle this gigantic task itself, the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) turned for help in 1962 to the Division of Medical Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. They, in turn, organized a "Drug Efficacy Study," which lasted nearly seven years and finally culminated in a report to the FDA in 1969. Our interest here is largely in drugs that may be purchased without a physician's prescription, so-called over-the-counter (OTC), or nonprescription, drugs. The study covered 420 of the estimated 350,000 such products and declared that only one-quarter of the 420 examined were effective. These findings pointed out the need for a more comprehensive review of the efficacy of all OTC drugs, applying identical standards to every one. Obviously, it would be impossible to study all of the estimated one-third million products, so it was decided to examine only their 200 active ingredients.
A further obstacle needed to be overcome. Some of the older drugs had been "grandfathered" under both the 1938 act and the 1962 amendments since they were covered by the original 1906 Food and Drugs Act. How could the FDA remove these drugs from the market? Even if they were proven ineffective, they were apparently immune from the "effective" requirement established at the later dates.
The FDA reached these grandfathered drugs by what can only be described as an extremely innovative application of administrative law. 2 The agency simply declared that a drug would be considered misbranded if the manufacturer made any claims for it which were not in accord with the findings of one of seventeen panels set up in 1972 to review the efficacy of the active ingredients of all OTC drugs. In other words, a particular drug, even though exempt from proofs of safety and efficacy under existing laws, was barred from commerce if any unsubstantiated claim was made as part of the labeling that it was "good" for anything, that is, effective for the treatment of a disease state. The word label is very broadly interpreted to include not only the words printed on the container or package but also any literature accompanying it, such as a package insert.
Testing Herbal Remedies
In their search for proof of efficacy of the various OTC drugs, the seventeen panels, each of which concerned itself with a different class of therapeutic agents, had a number of potential sources of information. Neither testimonials nor market success were considered reliable criteria. This left in vitro tests (tests conducted outside the patient or any living organism) and various kinds of clinical trials (on patients) as the most acceptable methods.
Relatively simple in vitro tests may be suitable for the evaluation of a small number of certain drugs. For example, antacids can be mixed with acid to determine their neutralizing capacity. However, to prove the safety and efficacy of most therapeutic agents, pharmacological studies are necessary. They are ordinarily begun in small animals and continued with increasing complexity all the way through a series of so-called randomized, double-blind clinical trials in human beings. That simply means that some patients selected at random receive the drug while others are given a placebo; both groups are unaware of what they are taking. The results are evaluated by a physician who is also unaware of who is getting what treatment, and after statistical analysis of the data, a judgment is made of the drug's effectiveness.
Such studies, particularly the complex clinical trials, are extremely expensive. Estimates vary, but a 1990 study placed the total average cost of developing a single new chemical compound for drug use at $231 million over a period of twelve years!3 The most recent estimate for the average cost of a successful new drug application is $359 million. 4 A large part of this amount would certainly be the cost of testing the compound to establish its safety and efficacy as required in the New Drug Application.
Obviously, no company is going to make this kind of investment unless there is a reasonable expectation that it will be able to recover its costs and also show a profit. Since patent protection, now limited to a maximum of seventeen years, begins in the early stages of development of a drug, not when it is approved for marketing by the FDA, about 90 percent of the new drugs currently introduced have a remaining patent life of less than eleven years. The old "plant" drugs, some of which have been known and used for centuries, do not even qualify for this degree of protection. For this reason, the pharmaceutical industry has shown little interest in sponsoring studies on them, and the safety and efficacy of most herbal remedies remains unproven. Remember, too, that the panels did not necessarily review a drug unless requested to do so by a manufacturer or some other interested party who was then asked to provide quantities of supporting data.
Unsafe and Ineffective
In 1990, results of the FDA study of over-the-counter drugs, including many herbs, were released to the public. The results were very disappointing. Although some plant drugs such as cascara bark and senna leaves and pods were found to be safe and effective (in these cases as laxatives) and placed in category I, some 258 herbs and herbal products were not so judged. Of these, 142 were categorized as unsafe or ineffective, category II. There was insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the other 116, and these were placed in category III.
Keep in mind that under this system, the FDA made judgments only on the basis of the evidence presented. Therefore, when it placed peppermint oil in category III, the FDA was not saying that peppermint oil was an ineffective digestive aid; it was merely noting that it had received insufficient evidence to allow peppermint oil to be designated effective. The same is true for prune concentrate and powder, which were not classified as effective laxatives even though they are universally known to be such.
The FDA has for some time maintained a list of substances "Generally Recognized as Safe," better known in the trade as the GRAS list. About 250 herbs appear on this list, primarily based on their use as food additives, that is, as flavors or spices in the culinary arts and the beverage industry. Some of them, such as ginger and licorice, are also employed for their medicinal action, but GRAS listing does not mean that the FDA has approved the herb for therapeutic purposes.
All of these circumstances have led to the situation I mentioned before in which, until recently, practically all herbal remedies have been removed from the shelves of pharmacies and from the supervision of knowledgeable pharmacists. Such remedies migrated to the health food stores where they are sold under the guise of herbs, teas, health foods, food supplements, nutritional products, etc., labeled only with the name of the product. No claim of effectiveness for any condition appears on the label of such containers nor in any leaflet or advertisement that directly accompanies the drug. Any such claim would cause the product to be declared misbranded and render it subject to confiscation. How then does the uninformed consumer learn the uses of the various herbs? Salespeople generally avoid recommendations (especially if the customer looks like a law enforcement official), since such activity could result in a charge of unlicensed practice of medicine. However, the clerks in health food stores or the catalogs of mail-order establishments will refer interested persons to a large selection of books, pamphlets, and charts that list the drugs and describe their supposed uses. Some of these information sources are quite broad in scope and are called herbals or natural-medicine books. Others limit their coverage to a single drug or therapeutic class of drugs. Still others list the various diseases or conditions that require treatment and then recommend specific remedies. In this way, current laws and regulations requiring that OTC drugs be proven safe and effective prior to marketing are circumvented.
Labeling a package only with the common name of a drug has some very serious drawbacks aside from the omitted information on utility. The popular names of plants are not only numerous but inexact. Used without a qualifying adjective, the term "snakeroot" applies to at least six different plants, including Actea pachypoda Elliott, Aristolochia serpentaria L., Asarum canadense L., Cimicifuga racemosa (L.) Nutt., Eupatorium rugosum Houtt., and Senecio aureus L. Several modifying adjectives are also used to denote these or other species. Thus we have black snakeroot, button snakeroot, Canada snakeroot, corn snakeroot, heart snakeroot, Indian snakeroot, large snakeroot, prairie snakeroot, rattle snakeroot, Sampson's snakeroot, seneca (senega or seneka) snakeroot, Texas snakeroot, Virginia snakeroot, and white snakeroot, among others. When I see any plant material labeled snakeroot, I feel like a rider for the Pony Express watching the last telegraph pole being placed in position on the California line. It is depressing!
We see packages labeled oriental ginseng, wild red American ginseng, Korean ginseng, Tienchi ginseng, Chinese ginseng, and ginseng ad infinitum and ad nauseam, often with no indication of the botanical origin of the plant material inside. We see mistletoe on an herb tea label and wonder whether it is from the European species (Viscum album L.) or the American. The latter term could refer to as many as 200 different species of the genus Phoradendron. When it comes to gotu kola (which does not contain any cola), and Fo-ti-tieng, which is not the same as fo-ti, the situation becomes dangerously confusing.
The only answer to this herbal Tower of Babel is to require that the scientific name, that is, the Latin binomial, of the plant appear on the labels of all herbs. As a matter of fact, the American Society of Pharmacognosy has recommended to the FDA that in addition to the scientific name, the label should indicate the part(s) of the plant represented, the country of origin, and a specific lot number that could be related to a voucher specimen maintained for reference purposes. That would solve the identity problem; questions concerning safety, efficacy, and potency would still remain, of course.
One unfortunate part of this whole situation is that at least some of the drugs of natural origin which must legally be sold in this manner without any indication of use are no doubt safe and do possess useful therapeutic properties. We know this from the continued widespread use of these products in countries other than the United States. The science of herbal medicine is far more advanced in Germany today than in the United States, and the laws and regulations of that country are more realistic than ours with respect to the evidence required to prove safety and efficacy of an herbal product. There a doctrine of "reasonable certainty" prevails. This means that the health authorities place considerable emphasis on reports of the experiences of general practitioners in evaluating a plant drug, and such experiences are supplemented by evidence found in the literature and supplied by manufacturers.
For several years, a special committee (Commission E) of the Bundesgesundheitsamt (Federal Department of Health) reviewed the safety and efficacy of herbs and published the results of its findings in monographic form in the Bundesanzeiger, a publication equivalent to our Federal Register. These monographs constitute some of the most up-to-date and useful information extant on the safety and efficacy of plant drugs. They are frequently cited as the findings of German health authorities in the discussions of the various herbs that constitute the remainder of this volume.
To clarify the impact of the different regulatory philosophies in Germany and the United States, let us take a brief look at a single herb, valerian. The dried rhizome and roots (underground parts) of Valeriana officinalis L. have been valued as a tranquilizing agent for more than 1,000 years. Valerian enjoyed official status in the United States for 150 years and was included in The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) from 1820 to 1942 and in The National Formulary from 1942 to 1950. It is still available in pharmacies in the form of a tincture, but a pharmaceutical manufacturer would probably drop this product rather than spend the time and money necessary to prove its safety and efficacy--after ten centuries of use. However, valerian "dietary supplement" products--teas, capsules, tablets, extracts, and the like--abound in health food stores.
In contrast to the limited availability of pharmaceutical quality valerian in this country, more than 100 different proprietary drug products containing it or its active principles are currently marketed in Germany. Research carried out there has not yet been able to establish with certainty the exact identity of the active principles responsible for its calmative and sedative properties, but German health authorities have found the drug effective. They have also noted that it is free from side effects and contraindications and have established a proper schedule for its various dosage forms. Such a gentle tranquilizer as valerian has a distinct advantage over its synthetic cousins in that its effects are not synergistic with (are not usually potentiated by) alcohol. It is indeed unfortunate that this useful drug is primarily available in the United States as a foul-smelling tincture, bitter herbal tea, or capsule instead of a more palatable legitimate drug form. And this is entirely a result of present laws and regulations governing the sale of drugs in this country.
Fortunately, Mark Blumenthal, Executive Director of the American Botanical Council in Austin, Texas, has produced an English translation of the complete Commission E monographs. For the first time, a wide American audience will have access to the regulations produced by the German health authorities.
So much for the past and present. What about the future? Fortunately, there are some hopeful signs that this extremely negative legal and regulatory situation in the field of herbal medicine will not continue indefinitely. The groundswell of consumer enthusiasm for all things natural, including herbs, sometimes referred to as the "green wave," may develop enough influence to induce needed changes. 5
posted
I would expect a press release from NCDP, not only defending its product but ATTACKING this monster pharm in a few days, maybe next week. Also, they may go for the one-two punch and also release a PR about sales figures and/or testimonails. That would be fantastic.
Oh, and for whomever asked about Repoman75... don't worry, he is watching. Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are 89 districts in the 50 states, which are listed with their divisions in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Sections 81-144. District courts also exist in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. In total there are 94 U.S. district courts. Some states, such as Alaska, are composed of a single judicial district. Others, such as California, are composed of multiple judicial districts. The number of judgeships allotted to each district is set forth in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133.
Q: How do I file a civil case? Is there a charge?
A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint. Parties instituting a civil action in a district court are required to pay a filing fee pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1914. The current fee is $150. Complaints may be accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning that the plaintiff is incapable of paying the filing fee.
Q: How can I check on the status of my case? Can I review case files?
Your lawyer, who likely is familiar with local court practice, is your best resource. Generally, all documents filed with a court are public records and are available through the clerk's office. By way of exception, some documents are sealed by special court order, and some documents are confidential by operation of law, such as grand jury materials and criminal files relating to juveniles.
As the keeper of court records, the fee clerk's office responds to most inquiries on the status of a case once given the specific case name or docket number. In many courts, inquiries for information and requests to examine dockets, case files, exhibits, and other records are made at the intake area in the clerk's office. Inquiries often are made by phone. There is a $15 fee for the retrieval of information that is not readily available. A fee of $ .50 a page also is assessed for providing copies of court documents.
Almost all federal courts have automated systems that allow for the search and retrieval of case-related information through personal computers at the public counters and through an internet service called PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Automated access to case-related information is available free of charge at the public counter in the clerk's office of most courts. The PACER service, which provides access from home or office for registered users, currently assesses a reasonable fee of $ .07 per page. Effective January 1, 2005, the PACER fee increased to $ .08 per page.
In many bankruptcy and appellate courts there also are telephone information systems, which enable callers to obtain case information through the use of a touch tone phone. These systems are provided free of charge, are available 24 hours a day, and have a toll free number for long distance service.
For more information, visit the Directory of Electronic Public Access Services
Q: When will the court reach a decision in my case?
Most cases are handled in an expeditious manner. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 establishes standard time requirements for the timely prosecution and disposition of criminal cases in district courts. There is no similar law governing civil trial scheduling, and as a result, the scheduling of criminal cases is assigned a higher priority.
In 1990, Congress enacted legislation that directs each district court to devise and adopt a civil expense and delay reduction plan. One goal established under the legislation is for each civil case to be scheduled for trial within 18 months of filing the complaint.
Litigants should keep in mind that judges have many duties in addition to deciding cases. The average district court judge has more than 400 newly filed cases to contend with each year. In addition to trials, judges conduct sentencings, pretrial conferences, settlement conferences, motions hearings, write orders and opinions, and consider other court matters both in the courtroom and in their chambers.
There are numerous reasons for delay, many of which are outside of a court's control. Attorneys and/or litigants may be responsible. Cases may be delayed because settlement negotiations are in progress. Some courts also experience shortages in judges or available courtrooms.
posted
I used to smoke and tried to quit while using the patch. One day I smoked on top of using the patch. I felt extremely sick and learned the hard way not to do that. I think basically I overdosed on nicotine. I believe ND has the right to warn people of the ill effects of nicotine based products.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
WASHINGTON, July 2, 2002 -- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ruled that bottled water with nicotine is an unapproved drug and cannot be legally sold as a dietary supplement to help smokers kick the habit.
The FDA was responding to a petition from anti-smoking and health groups that had submitted petitions demanding teh agency take action against Nico Water, which was being promoted on the Internet as a "cure" for smoking.
FDA said that since it considered nicotine addiction a disease, Nico Water could legally be treated as an unapproved drug. It also held that Nico Water could not be sold as a dietary supplement because it contains an active ingredient -- namely, nicotine polacrilex which is approved fur use in certain drug products, including chewing gum.
"FDA's decision underscores our commitment that consumers be protected from drug products that have not undergone our rigorous review process," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, FDA Deputy Commissioner.
A spokesman for the manufacturer of Nico Water disagreed. Ed Haisha of QT5 Inc. said that Nico Water is not a smoking-cessation product but a "smoking alternative" for use by smokers when they are unable to light up.
The petition was submitted in December of 2001, on behalf of several groups including the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Medical Association, and the American Lung Association. The petitioners specifically requested that the FDA classify and regulate "Nicotine Water" as a drug under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), or classify and regulate this product as a food containing an unapproved food additive under the Act. http://consumeraffairs.com/news02/nicotine.html -------------------------------------------------------
I don't see this happening to Nicodrops. Nicodrops is not including nicoteen in their losenge's. There are plenty of other losenges out there that are for cough and cold some that come to mind,Ricola and Ludens....If you rule against them it might set a precident and open the flood gates for drug companys to begin suing any company that produces an herbal remedy.
At the most, in my opinon, that will happen could be that Nicodrops might have to change their wording in advertisements or something like that.
What great publicity there will be alot of talk about Nicodrops over the next few days. I'll be looking for a fresh PR in the morning but if not we could see a falling pps, in which case I'll buy more....
GO NICO!!!!!
-------------------- grasshopper Posts: 268 | From: LA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A part of the complaint states the following:
We simply want Nicodrops to stop making false claims about their products and ours, and to withdraw their products from the marketplace until they can market them truthfully.
I am looking at the box now and is does not state anything about other products. In fact it says discontinue if you are experiencing one or more of the following symptoms: depression, nausea, cold sweats, dizziness, or vomiting.
There is nothing on the box that compares ND to other products.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holding the line this morning... good job longs. Now we just need an ATTACK PR from Chris to jolt us upward. He may even consider countersuing for libel against GSK.
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nicodrops Responds to Charges by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Wednesday February 9, 10:42 am ET Company Set to Aggressively Defend its Product and Claims
LA MESA, Calif., Feb. 9, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) -- Nicodrops International Inc., a subsidiary of Nicodrops, Inc. (OTC BB:NCDP.OB - News), developer of the world's first drug-free, non-nicotine smoking cessation lozenge, today announced it is standing behind its Nicodrops product and will aggressively defend a lawsuit filed yesterday by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (NYSE:GSK - News) in Federal district court in Western District of Pennsylvania. The suit seeks to prevent Nicodrops from using its name and providing its products to people who desire to stop smoking by attacking the efficacy on Nicodrops products. ADVERTISEMENT
``The suit filed by GlaxoSmithKline has absolutely no basis to it,'' said Christopher Calpito, president and CEO of Nicodrops, Inc. ``Nicodrops looks forward to dealing with it in court. We are intent on vigorously defending our company and its products. Nicodrops is also closely examining the comments about nicodrops in yesterday's press release announcing the suit made by the president of GSK Consumer Healthcare North America.''
About Nicodrops
Nicodrops, Inc., headquartered in La Mesa, CA, has developed the world's first drug free, non-nicotine product which is an aid to smokers wishing to give up their habit faster and at a lower cost than their major competitors without the adverse effects of nicotine. Nicodrops is an all-natural herb lozenge which helps to calm the nervous anxiety that is brought on by nicotine addiction. The company's lozenge products are based on patent protected proprietary technology which offers a safer alternative to all other nicotine based products in the marketplace today.
About GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare is one of the world's largest over- the-counter healthcare products companies. Its more than 30 well-known brands include the leading smoking cessation products, Nicorette and NicoDerm and Commit, as well as many medicine cabinet staples, Abreva(R), Aquafresh(R), Sensodyne(R) and Tums(R). GSK Consumer Healthcare continues to develop innovative products to help all smokers find their best support system and achieve their goal of being cigarette free.
Contact: Cervelle Group David Donlin (407) 295-7878 dave@thecervellegroup.com
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And where's compound cash? I can't believe he advocated shorting this (not that you can but...). He used to be one of NCDP's biggest fans.
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I e-mailed every address at CNBC, and Bloomberg, and 60 minutes to expose GSK for attempting to squash a competitor via frivolous lawsuits. I don't expect anything, but if anyone watches CNBC throughout the day, let us know if you hear of anything.
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Real reason for GSK actions! My post from RB onebiteonekill good point! Never thought of them doing this in terms of a product liability lawsuit. Was thinking more in terms of GSK running scared because of a definite alternative to what they have on the market. (Sort of what the generics have done to the brand name drugs market share over the years). Even tho this isn't a generic in any shape or form it would definitely grab a slice of the market in the first year and with quigley and joel appel working them over it could turn into a full blown collapse of their product. Next time you are in a drug store look at all the different type of cold eeze products on the shelf and measure the amount of shelf space they take up compared to when they frist came out with one product. It is amazing and this is one example of what quigley can do. Think of Ncdp in terms of several types of products including flavors, sugar free etc. and we could have the beginnings of something huge here. No wonder GSK is scared!
Posts: 188 | From: illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
hell, i used nicodrops to help me quit dipping...the good thing about it is that i'm not dependant on some gum that contains nicotine (which to me, seems more hazardous.)
lookin to free up some cash to buy up some more shares.
so good to see the littleman fight back the big bully
Posts: 58 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
namoper, I still have faith in nicodrops but I think in this case the bad outwieghs the good. Sure GSK is scared, they have a monopoly on the smoking cessation market and want it to stay that way, BUT a lawsuit is no good, especially when we are dealing with herbal products like ginseng, it's just no good. On top of that, I'm just bummed with pennnies in general. They are starting to lose their appeal when you consider poor advertising, marketing, press releases, reverse splits, scam companies, rediculous o/s's, volatility to manipulation. I'm holding ncdp, but it goes against the #1 rule of pennies
Posts: 215 | From: new york | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True compound, but I see on other posts you also just got burned from MLON. Don't let the taste of that scam ruin your appetite! You know we have a product, people say it works without side effects, and unless the FDA moves in to regulate ALL Herbal products, we're in the clear on this one. True, legal fees are a concern, but this should turn out ok for us in the long run, better than ok actually.
Keep your chin up - remember, 2005 = .2 - .5
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
did anyone buy in @ the dip? The lowet I could get a fill at was .0135 anyone able to get in lower?
Posts: 610 | From: Victoria | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Found this on some venture capitalist web site... looks like Chris was looking to sell NCDP for $5 mil? Don't know when, but with 800 mil. shares outstanding, that would be like $.007 a share! not good... I'm going to e-mail Dave at the Cervelle Group and let you know if I hear anything.
Posted by Chris Lawrence
Looking for an investor for 50/50 partnership or complete buyout at $5.5 Million USD. Please review our website at www.nicodrops.com Email: nicodrops@earthlink.net We are FDA in Canada DIN#02245097 issused 12/04/02. Over $500 Million in worldwide sales with only one Company (GlaxoSmithKline Pharamaceuticals) in 2002. Serious inquiries only thank you.
The Green Baron Report is encouraged to hear that Nicodrops will vigorously defend the Company and its products. Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare. In our experience, The Green Baron Report usually sees this kind of action only come when it appears there might be an impending and “real threat” to existing products that are on the market. Nicodrops feels very comfortable with its claims, and appears capable and ready to defend itself in court. Judging by the trading in NCDP today, this development has had no effect in the stock price, and quite honestly, it may get a boost due to the tremendous press coverage.
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont wanna rain on anybody's parade, but I was always told being sued was NOT a good thing. It certainly is a lousy way of getting publicity...
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good job to all longs holding strong.......I am so looking forward to the bell of the first round. I love a good fight, it's what makes America great. Sorry, I'm just feeling patriotic, F--k corporate America and hooray for the underdog.....
GO NICO!!!
-------------------- grasshopper Posts: 268 | From: LA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ed, it's good if you win and from what I can tell GSK is completely wrong in this case filing a BS lawsuit. Hope Calpito countersues! Go get em NCDP! Veni Vidi Vici
Posts: 188 | From: illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heard it this morning. No DD here just words of Tom Petty.
No I won't back down You could stand me up at the gates of Hell But I won't back down No I'll stand my ground Won't be turned around And I'll keep this world from draggin' me down Gonna stand my ground And I won't back down
Go Nicodrops!!!! Go Chris!!!!
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
namoper Emailed them myself and I have a reply from dave concerning chris selling ncdp. The post was a long long time ago and the offer no longer stands (hasn’t for quite some time). I can understand how you would be concerned but this has no merit any longer nor will it affect the company at all!
Dave Donlin
Cervelle Group
Posts: 188 | From: illinois | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stocktracker: All publicity is good. It helps build awareness. (imo)
Awful quiet in here since the price dropped. BTW, NEGATIVE publicity is never good, and a there is nothing positive about a lawsuit, even if you end up winning it.
-------------------- If I give you bad information, please feel free to sue me. I have nothing left anyway. Ed Posts: 1772 | From: Oxford, PA, USA | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Ed, if you don't like the stock, sell. If you're not long, ----> there's the door.
Posts: 207 | From: NJ | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
