Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[alibizzle] 12/4/2023 12:55

It's California and it's big pharma . So odds against GSK as Cali known to be hard on companies and soft on people

[tradermichael] 12/4/2023 12:11

Certainly (in the case of James Goetz), it cannot be admissible as evidence to claim that a single pill failed the specification in 2019 having been kept (under uncontrolled conditions)for several years after withdrawal in 2017 and therefore the medication was the cause of his cancers, with no record of his diet (bacon, preservatives etc) and lifestyle (exposure to air pollutants, tobacco, etc), family history and other possible causes.

[tradermichael] 12/4/2023 11:55

Agree. Also, it cannot actually be proven that there is a causal link between those who in the past took Zantac medication and those who later developed cancers.

[rikky72] 12/4/2023 11:45

It is a mistake to ask juries to rule on complicated scientific evidence. For the same reason here, juries are not involved in complicated fraud cases..

[geckotheglorious] 12/4/2023 10:46

Zantac’s dueling rulings
I’ve been following the saga of the heartburn drug Zantac since 2019. That’s when the drug was first recalled because it was contaminated with a probable carcinogen called NDMA. The next year, the FDA forced Zantac and its generic competitors off the market altogether after the agency determined the active ingredient, ranitidine, could form NDMA over time or in warmer temperatures.

Given the serious efforts to get this drug off the market, I was a bit surprised when last year a Florida judge ruled that thousands of lawsuits against the makers of Zantac shouldn’t move forward. US District Judge Robin Rosenberg threw out all of the experts that plaintiffs’ lawyers had hoped to use to argue their case. She offered a detailed 341-page account of why she disagreed with their takes, making it clear that she, rather than a jury, would have the last say on difficult and extremely technical scientific arguments.

Now, a judge in California has taken an entirely different approach, opening the door to what may be the first trial concerning the blockbuster drug and whether it causes cancer. A few weeks ago, Evelio Grillo, a judge in the Superior Court of Alameda County, denied, for the most part, the effort by lawyers for Zantac-maker GSK to exclude the plaintiff’s experts.

“The jury has the responsibility for resolving conflicts between (admissible) competing expert opinions,” Grillo wrote. In other words, he’s leaving it to the jury to determine if the experts’ scientific opinions are reasonable.

The ruling means the plaintiff James Goetz may very well have his day in court against GSK. Goetz, a religious Zantac user for more than two decades, was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2017 and has undergone various life-altering medical interventions as a result, such as having his bladder, prostate and 20 feet of his intestines removed. His lawyers had pills tested that Goetz kept following the 2019 recall. One pill contained more than 30 times the tiny amount of NDMA that the Food and Drug Administration has allowed drugs to contain.

“The California court order validates what we have been saying for years—that the evidence needs to be shown to a jury,” Brent Wisner, one of Goetz’s attorneys, said when Grillo’s ruling came down.

If GSK doesn’t settle, the trial is set to start July 24. The outcome could have a big impact on tens of thousands of state cases around the US waiting to go next.— Anna Edney (Bloomberg)

[alibizzle] 07/4/2023 07:13

Seems strange on the week we get bad news about paying royalties to AZ on zejula the share price goes up

[drk1] 06/4/2023 11:51

Probably investors taking advantage of the low price and new ISA year which stars today.

[lippy4] 06/4/2023 11:34

nice to see this going up after being so low for a long time..

[rikky72] 06/4/2023 11:15

Hopefully a bit more than that this time if they get their act together and maintain it..

[bili1] 06/4/2023 10:20

So on our way back to £1750 again to follow the pattern over the last 10 years?

[tradermichael] 05/4/2023 11:43

The takeaway from that article is: "Investors should also note GSK's current valuation metrics, including its Forward P/E ratio of 10.27. For comparison, its industry has an average Forward P/E of 20.43, which means GSK is trading at a discount to the group."

(Illustrates just how cheap GSK shares are ....)

[patientcapital] 05/4/2023 10:40

I think someone thought this was heading to £12!

[tradermichael] 05/4/2023 06:15

Even better, thanks!

[garycook] 04/4/2023 23:56

TM, GSK Dividend 13.75p 13-Apr

[tradermichael] 04/4/2023 14:38

Q4 dividend pays out on Thursday next week (13 Apr 2023) at 13.25p/share ..... ;0)

[pcok] 03/4/2023 15:49

The heart of the strategy was to hire the best to develop the opportunities; a common approach across the industry. I agree Hal matched his earlier performance in 2001 and proved an expensive failure. After taking the money and a stack of options, I believe he is now employed in the noble pursuit of making Jeff Bezos immortal. Obviously a man of high moral fibre.

Nevertheless, opportunities are being developed and the vaccine pipeline does look both ground breaking and share price enhancing and we still don't know if some of the acquisitions will produce results. She still has my full support.

[rikky72] 03/4/2023 12:41

But oncology was the mainstay of their new strategic direction a few years ago and they have utterly and embarrassingly failed on that arena. The market sees this and takes note and it can't just be brushed under the carpet by talking up vaccines and 'genetic validation' of their remaining pipeline.

[pcok] 03/4/2023 11:55

...and she has made a difference. Major reorganisation, strategic directions clarified and some very positive trial results feeding into the future pipeline. Good job so far and a work in progress. She has my full support.

[cumnor] 30/3/2023 14:46

Agree, anhar, Walmsley has no real authority. Been there long enough now to have made a difference.

[rikky72] 30/3/2023 12:27

Yes, and the supposed mitigation for the reduction in the generous dividend was supposed to be a rocket boost in capital appreciation of the new GSK's share price, supposedly enabled by them freeing themselves from the shackles of the consumer arm (and a lot of debt) and thereby allowing them to develop and execute a much-improved pipeline.Well, we've had the former, still waiting (and waiting and waiting..) on the latter.

[anhar] 30/3/2023 11:03

I'd be wary of referring to the CEO by their first name, as if cosily personally acquainted. It's a sign of falling in love with a share, and that aint a good sign.

She isn't "Emma" like some sort of second-hand eponymous Jane Austen character, she's Walmsley and this share has poor long term share price peformance. Calling her Emma doesn't mitigate that.

I know as I've held it since before dinosaurs roamed the Earth. I'm an income investor and even that aspect has been hit by the demerger where my combined divis from new GSK and HLN are less than the old GSK alone for the time being.

[alibizzle] 30/3/2023 09:53

Emma will be staying for a while yet. Just need to wait until court case verdict

[tradermichael] 30/3/2023 09:19

Are you saying that Emma must go?