• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

New NCE study by Johan Auwerx


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 VP.

  • Guest
  • 498 posts
  • 200

Posted 24 January 2008 - 01:28 PM


Good News. Looks like a repeat of the November 2006 study but this time with NCE's. I hope they publish results for mice on normal diets.

Johan Auwerx, MD, PhD, a member of Sirtris’ Scientific Advisory Board and Professor at the Medical Faculty of the University of Strasburg, France, will present the unpublished data at the Keystone Symposia on Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Action and Resistance Conference on Saturday, January 26 from 8-11:30 am CST.

The new data will show that mice on a high-fat diet treated with one of Sirtris’ new chemical entities (NCEs) remained lean while consuming the same number of calories as the untreated mice. Mice on the highest dose of the NCE had no weight gain over 13 weeks, and in exercise testing, ran over 1,600 meters before tiring, while the untreated mice tired at roughly 800 meters.

The treated mice also showed lowered glucose, improved insulin sensitivity and increased energy expenditure due to an increase in the number and function of mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell. These results are similar to a study previously published in the November 2006 issue of Cell by Dr. Auwerx when mice were treated with resveratrol.

“In this study we demonstrated that Sirtris’ new chemical entity stimulates the SIRT1 enzyme, and mimics the powerful effects we’ve seen in earlier studies but with lower dosage levels,” said Auwerx. “This activity provides evidence of a potential new, front-line therapy for Type 2 Diabetes.”

http://biz.yahoo.com...05291.html?.v=1

#2 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 733 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 24 January 2008 - 04:58 PM

I also found this snippet about their imminent plans for testing one of the NCE's in humans:

"We plan to have one of our new development compounds in a human clinical trial in the first half of this year,” said Sirtris Pharmaceuticals Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chair Christoph Westphal, MD, PhD. “In Dr.Auwerx’s study we see lowered glucose levels and improved insulin sensitivity, characteristics of other oral agents for Type 2 Diabetes.”



Good News. Looks like a repeat of the November 2006 study but this time with NCE's. I hope they publish results for mice on normal diets.

Johan Auwerx, MD, PhD, a member of Sirtris’ Scientific Advisory Board and Professor at the Medical Faculty of the University of Strasburg, France, will present the unpublished data at the Keystone Symposia on Diabetes Mellitus, Insulin Action and Resistance Conference on Saturday, January 26 from 8-11:30 am CST.

The new data will show that mice on a high-fat diet treated with one of Sirtris’ new chemical entities (NCEs) remained lean while consuming the same number of calories as the untreated mice. Mice on the highest dose of the NCE had no weight gain over 13 weeks, and in exercise testing, ran over 1,600 meters before tiring, while the untreated mice tired at roughly 800 meters.

The treated mice also showed lowered glucose, improved insulin sensitivity and increased energy expenditure due to an increase in the number and function of mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cell. These results are similar to a study previously published in the November 2006 issue of Cell by Dr. Auwerx when mice were treated with resveratrol.

“In this study we demonstrated that Sirtris’ new chemical entity stimulates the SIRT1 enzyme, and mimics the powerful effects we’ve seen in earlier studies but with lower dosage levels,” said Auwerx. “This activity provides evidence of a potential new, front-line therapy for Type 2 Diabetes.”

http://biz.yahoo.com...05291.html?.v=1



Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 24 January 2008 - 05:37 PM

Once I read about the owner of a company who was hesitant to turn it public. He said he liked to manage a company, not a stock.
I'm afraid we are witnessing now how health research is being manipulated for stock valuation purposes. I wonder if Auwerx saw this press release. The paper he submitted to the symposium is "A Cofactor Network that Controls PGC-1alpha Activity and Energy Homeostasis ". It doesn't sound much like a thousand times more potent NCE.

#4 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 26 January 2008 - 06:46 AM

Once I read about the owner of a company who was hesitant to turn it public. He said he liked to manage a company, not a stock.
I'm afraid we are witnessing now how health research is being manipulated for stock valuation purposes. I wonder if Auwerx saw this press release. The paper he submitted to the symposium is "A Cofactor Network that Controls PGC-1alpha Activity and Energy Homeostasis ". It doesn't sound much like a thousand times more potent NCE.


I second this notion, having played these kinds of games before.

Posted Image


Note: The Press Release mentioned above was made Thursday January 24, 8:00 am ET, source Yahoo finance. Other press releases on the 22nd and 23rd mention Sirtris will present keynote addresses, thus prompting people who know something to ask around, find the info and buy the stock. Then sell once the big news hits.

Edited by edward, 26 January 2008 - 07:04 AM.


#5 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 26 January 2008 - 09:52 AM

Once I read about the owner of a company who was hesitant to turn it public. He said he liked to manage a company, not a stock.
I'm afraid we are witnessing now how health research is being manipulated for stock valuation purposes. I wonder if Auwerx saw this press release. The paper he submitted to the symposium is "A Cofactor Network that Controls PGC-1alpha Activity and Energy Homeostasis ". It doesn't sound much like a thousand times more potent NCE.


I second this notion, having played these kinds of games before.

Posted Image


Note: The Press Release mentioned above was made Thursday January 24, 8:00 am ET, source Yahoo finance. Other press releases on the 22nd and 23rd mention Sirtris will present keynote addresses, thus prompting people who know something to ask around, find the info and buy the stock. Then sell once the big news hits.


What is curious is the principles in the company are forbidden from trading their stock by the SEC until it's been public for several years.

#6 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 26 January 2008 - 03:32 PM

Dont they have something like a 90 day waiting period before they could sell their stock? I am not expert on IPOs but that was simply my impression. Since it is past past 90 days I thought it reasonable...

#7 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 January 2008 - 03:56 PM

Another explanation besides insider trading could be programmed trigger points. That could account for some of the spike and downturn. Just a thought.

#8 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 26 January 2008 - 06:28 PM

Dont they have something like a 90 day waiting period before they could sell their stock? I am not expert on IPOs but that was simply my impression. Since it is past past 90 days I thought it reasonable...


No, insiders have a longer requirement.

However, some stock movement does help the underwriter, as it allows them to have some clients unload some stock at a proft, and then others buy some.

#9 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 26 January 2008 - 07:59 PM

Technically insiders are those working for the company. That dosen't stop these insiders from leaking information to those near to them, while playing golf, going out for drinks etc. One insider working for company A says to another insider working for company B that there are going to be some major announcements on Thursday. Company B employee says to company A person, thanks for the tip, btw our company is going to be anouncing the development of a new technolgy next week... Company B employee buys stock in Company A and tells their friends who tell their broker who lets some key players know about the hot tip. Company A employee does the same thing with Company B. All of this is technically legal because the insiders never actually trade their own stock only the stocks of others. This happens all the time.

#10 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 27 January 2008 - 12:16 AM

Technically insiders are those working for the company. That dosen't stop these insiders from leaking information to those near to them, while playing golf, going out for drinks etc. One insider working for company A says to another insider working for company B that there are going to be some major announcements on Thursday. Company B employee says to company A person, thanks for the tip, btw our company is going to be anouncing the development of a new technolgy next week... Company B employee buys stock in Company A and tells their friends who tell their broker who lets some key players know about the hot tip. Company A employee does the same thing with Company B. All of this is technically legal because the insiders never actually trade their own stock only the stocks of others. This happens all the time.


Unless I am misunderstanding you, that is patently illegal. It is illegal to trade on insider information, no matter what company you work for and no matter what stock you buy. The only relevant issue is did you receive information from an insider, (or are you an insider,) and was that information available to the public.

#11 VP.

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 498 posts
  • 200

Posted 27 January 2008 - 12:26 AM

Yep. It's illegal. Remember Martha Stewart?

edit Mind: accidentally hit the edit button instead of reply, sorry. Only thing gone is quoted text from the previous post.

#12 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 January 2008 - 01:03 AM

Yep. It's illegal. Remember Martha Stewart?


Actually Martha was never charged and never convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to a prosecuter and/or grand jury. All of the expert opinion I read agreed that there was not a case for insider trading. In a bout of prosecutorial misconduct (in my view), the prosecuter held the charge of insider trading over her head for nearly a year (even though he knew without a doubt he could never get a conviction) in order to keep interviewing her and her associates until someone slipped up. After months and months Martha finally tripped up and gave conflicting testimony. Into the slammer. I am not even a fan of Martha, but I did feel sorry for her in this instance.

#13 VP.

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 498 posts
  • 200

Posted 27 January 2008 - 02:16 AM

Yep. It's illegal. Remember Martha Stewart?


Actually Martha was never charged and never convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of lying to a prosecuter and/or grand jury. All of the expert opinion I read agreed that there was not a case for insider trading. In a bout of prosecutorial misconduct (in my view), the prosecuter held the charge of insider trading over her head for nearly a year (even though he knew without a doubt he could never get a conviction) in order to keep interviewing her and her associates until someone slipped up. After months and months Martha finally tripped up and gave conflicting testimony. Into the slammer. I am not even a fan of Martha, but I did feel sorry for her in this instance.


You are absolutely right. She was never charged with insider trading but only because it's nearly impossible to get a conviction for insider trading. I do believe she did trade on inside information and I also believe she was only prosecuted because of her fame.

#14 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 January 2008 - 02:26 AM

She was never charged with insider trading but only because it's nearly impossible to get a conviction for insider trading. I do believe she did trade on inside information and I also believe she was only prosecuted because of her fame.


Martha wasn't prosecuted on insider trading because she was not an employee of the company. Let us say Martha got the tip and told 5 of her friends, they told a few other people and eventually, a couple minutes later you receive the info in your email inbox. You trade on the info and save your butt from losing a bunch or you catch the rising tide. Are you guilty of insider trading? No. Neither was Martha. It doesn't matter if one person OUTSIDE the company got the tip or if 10,000 people got the tip. They are all innocent as the law is currently written and as I understand it. The guilty parties are the ones (from inside) who told Martha.

#15 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 27 January 2008 - 02:58 AM

She was never charged with insider trading but only because it's nearly impossible to get a conviction for insider trading. I do believe she did trade on inside information and I also believe she was only prosecuted because of her fame.


Martha wasn't prosecuted on insider trading because she was not an employee of the company. Let us say Martha got the tip and told 5 of her friends, they told a few other people and eventually, a couple minutes later you receive the info in your email inbox. You trade on the info and save your butt from losing a bunch or you catch the rising tide. Are you guilty of insider trading? No. Neither was Martha. It doesn't matter if one person OUTSIDE the company got the tip or if 10,000 people got the tip. They are all innocent as the law is currently written and as I understand it. The guilty parties are the ones (from inside) who told Martha.


That's the current law as was taught in my MBA courses and what I was trying to say in my golf buddies scenario above. But this is not an business or economics forum so... moving right along...

#16 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:23 AM

She was never charged with insider trading but only because it's nearly impossible to get a conviction for insider trading. I do believe she did trade on inside information and I also believe she was only prosecuted because of her fame.


Martha wasn't prosecuted on insider trading because she was not an employee of the company. Let us say Martha got the tip and told 5 of her friends, they told a few other people and eventually, a couple minutes later you receive the info in your email inbox. You trade on the info and save your butt from losing a bunch or you catch the rising tide. Are you guilty of insider trading? No. Neither was Martha. It doesn't matter if one person OUTSIDE the company got the tip or if 10,000 people got the tip. They are all innocent as the law is currently written and as I understand it. The guilty parties are the ones (from inside) who told Martha.


From wikipedia:
"Liability for insider trading volations cannot be avoided by passing on the information in an "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" or quid pro quo arrangement, as long as the person receiving the information knew or should have known that the information was company property.

For example, if Company A's CEO did not trade on the undisclosed takeover news, but instead passed the information on to his brother-in-law who traded on it, illegal insider trading would still have occurred"

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 27 January 2008 - 03:31 AM.


#17 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:47 AM

Such situations are almost impossible to track (especially if the initial information was verbally passed on) and prosecute, making enforcement also impossible, thus they will continue to occur and are a reality in modern business.

#18 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 27 January 2008 - 03:56 AM

Such situations are almost impossible to track (especially if the initial information was verbally passed on) and prosecute, making enforcement also impossible, thus they will continue to occur and are a reality in modern business.


You are now changing your stance from "technically legal" to the opposite, paraphrasing, -technically illegal, but...-

It's many times easier than you think to prove. If Sinclair's mother starts starts profitably day trading SIRT, I figure someone gets caught.

#19 edward

  • Guest
  • 1,404 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Southeast USA

Posted 27 January 2008 - 04:21 AM

When I took business law, finance and related courses in 2004 I had a professor who was lecturing and described a scenario where mid level managers who played golf together and talked about various business issues in their companies and then passed that information on to other people. It was his opinion that this was not technically illegal under the laws of that time for people to act on that information who were not direct employees or family members of employees of the companies. However it put the original people who gave the information at risk, but that since it was almost impossible to prove that the information was leaked (in a court of law) that the issue came down to one of ethics. I am just going by what I was taught.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#20 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 27 January 2008 - 04:24 AM

When I took business law, finance and related courses in 2004 I had a professor who was lecturing and described a scenario where mid level managers who played golf together and talked about various business issues in their companies and then passed that information on to other people. It was his opinion that this was not technically illegal under the laws of that time for people to act on that information who were not direct employees or family members of employees of the companies. However it put the original people who gave the information at risk, but that since it was almost impossible to prove that the information was leaked (in a court of law) that the issue came down to one of ethics. I am just going by what I was taught.


Maybe we have an SEC attorney here that can settle the matter. Hey, is Ivan Boesky a member?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users