Kodak Stock Triples!

[markjwyatt]

You all know that Kodak has not received a 750 million dollar loan? They have received a "letter of intent" from the government to provide a loan if they can demonstrate the ability to produce pharmaceutical ingredients.

The price rise is speculation. For you that have bought a few shares at $2 I'd suggest you sell it quick and take the profit to buy film.

But clearly it is as good as a done deal when the president of the USA comes out and talks about it. But you are right technically, something could intervene so there is risk. If you own it at $2, the risk is very small compared to the potential gain (in my opinion).

 

[fdarnell]

It's worked before. Once there was a thing called a "K-car". Now there's a Dodge Challenger Hellcat. I just don't agree with all the exec's cashing in stock options ahead of the game. They should be forced to hold them until after the loan is paid back. After all, most of us get paid when work is performed.:bang:

 

[farlymac]

The way the article that Zonan linked to reads it's like Kodak hasn't done this type of work before. But as more details come out they do have facilities already running, they just need to do some expansion to take in the new work.

And the contract isn't for new development of drugs, but making components of existing generic drugs. But why use monies from a fund that is supposed to be spent overseas to help emerging economies on a home industry? While it's nice that Kodak is getting this work, the way the stock started trading in the period just prior to the announcement really smacks of somebody making some fast bucks off of leaked information.

PF

 

[markjwyatt]

...But why use monies from a fund that is supposed to be spent overseas to help emerging economies on a home industry? ...
PF

America First, I guess...

 

[f.hayek]

America First, I guess...

When 95% of all generics, drug chemical precursors and components essential for drug manufacture are made in a country that is a rival, if not an outright opponent of the US and its Allies, it would seem that America was "last" in the previous calculus.

 

[maigo]

Maybe, just maybe, his motto actually stood for: Make Analog Great Again.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

What puts this in perspective is Kodak is valued at $300 million.
They just received a $750 million loan.

And yes, this is to produce pharmaceuticals in part to fight the pandemic.

Including ingredients for hydroxychloroquine...

[FONT=&quot]

Has there been a malaria pandemic? If not, should anyone believe (i.e. accept in the absence of credible evidence or, in this case, in the face of credible evidence that the opposite is true) and promulgate the mendacious allegation that hydroxychloroquine has any value against COVID-19, they're dangerous Kool-Aide drinkers…

[/FONT]

That is between doctors and their patients...

If doctors and patients were individually deciding to administer a drug with no proven efficacy against COVID-19, that would be one thing. For non-expert politicians, quacks and photography forum posters to be promoting it, despite its documented lack of safety when administered outside a hospital setting, not to mention how ignoramuses in the public hear the propaganda and ingest things that sound similar but end up killing them, is extraordinarily dangerous. It ought not continue.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Crony capitalism is alive and well: Kodak Gave Its CEO Stock Options, Then News Broke of a Million-Dollar Federal Deal and Prices Soared

Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class. This is often achieved by using state power rather than competition in managing permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other forms of state intervention[1][2]

The source of this definition: Wikipedia. You'll find other definitions elsewhere, and they are, more or less similar.

Cheers, OtL

 

[chipgreenberg]

Quacks like this guy? An epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health with hundreds of published papers?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...save-up-to-100k-lives-if-used-for-coronavirus

If doctors and patients were individually deciding to administer a drug with no proven efficacy against COVID-19, that would be one thing. For non-expert politicians, quacks and photography forum posters to be promoting it, despite its documented lack of safety when administered outside a hospital setting, not to mention how ignoramuses in the public hear the propaganda and ingest things that sound similar but end up killing them, is extraordinarily dangerous. It ought not continue.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Quacks like this guy? An epidemiology professor at the Yale School of Public Health with hundreds of published papers?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...save-up-to-100k-lives-if-used-for-coronavirus

Yep, quacks like that guy. You link to an article in the Washington Examiner.

If you do a little research on Dr. Harvey Rich, you'll see he's an outlier at Yale, and his specialty is cancer research, not coronaviruses. You might also look up the statement from the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, where he states that Dr. Harvey Rich has an opinion about the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine, and that others disagree, but that Yale School of Medicine is letting him voice his opinion because the dean thinks it's important not to stifle dissent among the medical community.

Certainly no ringing endorsement of Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19 by the medical community.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

More on the Kodak "Deal":

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eastmankodak-options-exclusive-idUSKBN24X43K

Best,
-Tim

 

[markjwyatt]

Yep, quacks like that guy. You link to an article in the Washington Examiner.

If you do a little research on Dr. Harvey Rich, you'll see he's an outlier at Yale, and his specialty is cancer research, not coronaviruses. You might also look up the statement from the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, where he states that Dr. Harvey Rich has an opinion about the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine, and that others disagree, but that Yale School of Medicine is letting him voice his opinion because the dean thinks it's important not to stifle dissent among the medical community.

Certainly no ringing endorsement of Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19 by the medical community.

Best,
-Tim

I am generally staying out of discussions about HCQ. It has gotten so political it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion about it (sort of like masking). What I think I know is

1. It is one of the safer drugs we have
2. It is effective for a number of diseases related to the immune system (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.) as well as for traditional malaria purposes.
3. It may have some efficacy for Covid-19, but certainly is not a "cure".

I say leave to to the doctor and the patient and keep politicians out of it. Everyone is free to have their own opinion about HCQ.

 

[markjwyatt]

More on the Kodak "Deal":

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-eastmankodak-options-exclusive-idUSKBN24X43K

Best,
-Tim

Good article. Looks like it was permissible but "unusual" in this author's research.

 

[willie_901]

No Opinion or Politicians - Just Show Me the Data

No Opinion or Politicians - Just Show Me the Data

I am generally staying out of discussions about HCQ. It has gotten so political it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion about it (sort of like masking). What I think I know is

1. It is one of the safer drugs we have
2. It is effective for a number of diseases related to the immune system (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, etc.) as well as for traditional malaria purposes.
3. It may have some efficacy for Covid-19, but certainly is not a "cure".

I say leave to to the doctor and the patient and keep politicians out of it. Everyone is free to have their own opinion about HCQ.

Statement 1 is not correct.

COVID-19 efficacy is moot as the risks outweigh the ad-hoc claims of benefits (see FDA EUA revocation below).

The use of HQC is now off-label as of June 15. As before, physicians can prescribe and FDA approved drug for use outside of its compliance scope.

The FDA Emergency Use Authorization revocation document states,

"Recent results from a large randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients, a population similar to the population for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were authorized for emergency use, demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit on mortality or in speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including data showing that the suggested dosing regimens for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. The totality of scientific evidence currently available indicate a lack of benefit."

India and Turkey currently use HQC for COVID-19 patients. France, Belgium and Italy suspended HQC for COVID-19 patients in late May.

What about results? "According to the government's own admission, only 22% of deaths in India are medically certified." There is no data to indicate whether or not HCQ has a positive impact on India's COVID-19 death rate.


FDA

Emergency Use Authorization revoked by FDA

 

[markjwyatt]

Statement 1 is not correct.

COVID-19 efficacy is moot as the risks outweigh the ad-hoc claims of benefits (see FDA EUA revocation below).

The use of HQC is now off-label as of June 15. As before, physicians can prescribe and FDA approved drug for use outside of its compliance scope.

The FDA Emergency Use Authorization revocation document states,

"Recent results from a large randomized clinical trial in hospitalized patients, a population similar to the population for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were authorized for emergency use, demonstrated that hydroxychloroquine showed no benefit on mortality or in speeding recovery. This outcome was consistent with other new data, including data showing that the suggested dosing regimens for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to kill or inhibit the virus that causes COVID-19. The totality of scientific evidence currently available indicate a lack of benefit."

India and Turkey currently use HQC for COVID-19 patients. France, Belgium and Italy suspended HQC for COVID-19 patients in late May.

What about results? "According to the government's own admission, only 22% of deaths in India are medically certified." There is no data to indicate whether or not HCQ has a positive impact on India's COVID-19 death rate.

FDA

Emergency Use Authorization revoked by FDA

Again, my opinion is it rests between the doctor and patient. In this politicized climate (and I am not suggesting your valid concerns are politicized, but many are) that is the safest place for it.

Here is a more international picture near the peak of the first wave (not just USA and India):

Treatments & Efficacy

The three most commonly prescribed treatments amongst COVID-19 treaters are 56% analgesics, 41% Azithromycin, and 33% Hydroxychloroquine
Hydroxychloroquine usage amongst COVID-19 treaters is 72% in Spain, 49% in Italy, 41% in Brazil, 39% in Mexico, 28% in France, 23% in the U.S., 17% in Germany, 16% in Canada, 13% in the UK and 7% in Japan

Hydroxychloroquine was overall chosen as the most effective therapy amongst COVID-19 treaters from a list of 15 options (37% of COVID-19 treaters) [note: this was pre-Remdesivir study, may have changed, Mark]
75% in Spain, 53% Italy, 44% in China, 43% in Brazil, 29% in France, 23% in the U.S. and 13% in the U.K.

The two most common treatment regimens for Hydroxychloroquine were:
(38%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 400 mg daily for five days
(26%) 400mg twice daily on day one; 200mg twice daily for four days

Outside the U.S., Hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients
Globally, 19% of physicians prescribed or have seen Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically used for high risk patients, and 8% for low risk patients

 

[Timmyjoe]

When referring to Hydroxychloroquine as treatment for Covid-19: “At this point in time, there’s been five randomized-control placebo-controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine,” Assistant US Health Secretary Adm. Brett Giroir said. “We don’t recommend that as a treatment. There’s no evidence to show that it is.”

Just saying'

Best,
-Tim

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Don't forget the demons.
Yay Kodak, keep churning out 5222 and 7222!
Phil Forrest

 

[chipgreenberg]

Tim I actually heard Dr Rich interviewed on Progressive Radio Network, not Fox News. I thought what he had to say was compelling. When
I did a quick search on the way out the door this am so I could post something Washington Examiner showed up.

I personally value hearing different opinions so I can have a discussion with my health care provider looking at all options. People who shoot down these diverse opinions as quackery because they don't like the publication it was presented in stymie that free exchange of ideas.

Chip

Yep, quacks like that guy. You link to an article in the Washington Examiner.

If you do a little research on Dr. Harvey Rich, you'll see he's an outlier at Yale, and his specialty is cancer research, not coronaviruses. You might also look up the statement from the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, where he states that Dr. Harvey Rich has an opinion about the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine, and that others disagree, but that Yale School of Medicine is letting him voice his opinion because the dean thinks it's important not to stifle dissent among the medical community.

Certainly no ringing endorsement of Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid-19 by the medical community.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Timmyjoe]

Chip,

It has nothing to do with not liking a particular publication, and I don't believe every idea has the same value as another. Do you consider the President's recommendation of shoving an ultraviolet light up your anus to cure Covid-19, or possibly injecting yourself with bleach/disinfectant to cure Covid-19, are those all part of the "free exchange of ideas?"

When doctors I trust (like Dr. Fauci, the foremost infectious disease expert in the United States, & Assistant US Health Secretary Adm. Brett Giroir) say Hydroxychloroquine is not effective in treating Covid-19 and actually can cause great harm to people who have certain heart conditions, and I weigh that against one particular doctor who's specialty is cancer, not infectious disease, and then I see him hyped by the Washington Examiner and the opinion section of Fox News (who, like the President have a strong political agenda for hyping Hydroxychloroquine), and by that wacko doctor who believes having sex with demons in your sleep is the cause of gynecological problems for women, I don't really consider much value in "hearing those different opinions".

But hey, it's your health. Listen to whomever you please.

Best,
-Tim

 

[gavinlg]

From an outside perspective, it seems obvious that HCQ has become an ideological battle rather than a medical one. There also seems to be a raft of evidence showing early HCQ treatment results in far lower death rate, some from several other countries that is either being censored or ignored by mainstream US media and big tech.
That kind of hypocrisy is both worrying and disturbing considering the vast amount of therapies and treatments used everyday in modern medicine that have morbid long term success rates, or even end up directly contributing to the death of millions every year.

I also see no reason for the hundreds of individual physicians sticking their necks out to stake their reputations and practices on the drug if there wasn't something to it.

I found this info interesting in particular -
https://c19study.com