Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Like losers, shorts will hang around for months and months trying to maintain some negative narrative of one sort or another. They have no choice. It’s a job.
He’s just pointing out your long denied likely reason for being here. We all know why he is here and what he hopes for. He doesn’t hide his hopes and agenda, and he has very good reasons for expecting the outcome he does expect. You, on the other hand, seem to have come here from your stalking of the King’s College staff and transferred your illness to the audience here … seeking attention of the negative sort.
Your comment, given your ill wishes against the company for years is just a distraction. They just tapped a retail shareholder for the board. The notion that some other random person would add to the expertise of the board is nonsense and we’re very possibly at the end of this development stage company’s lifecycle, so such suggestions are not just empty, but again, mere distractions on the order of look, look over there!
So what other false ideas are you going to throw out there? Stalking people and companies is bizarre behavior.
Thanks so much Sukus! Fingers crossed in pending events. May they catch shorty on their back feet and ready to tumble into the abyss of false and badly conceived certainty.
Give it a break. Missed deadlines by weeks in most recent cases. Ends of trials are notoriously difficult to predict and that is a common area of failed predictions in this sector. Predicting the speed of regulators is also difficult. Figuring out how to navigate a profoundly novel trial and s also not an easy task.
It is impossible to time these stocks but at this stage it is not so much a problem because it is in the regulator’s hands. Yes, you may not be able to predict because… regulator… but then the claims become quite ridiculous because the reality is more obvious.
It’s a penny stock, so I would not expect a lot of US based news coverage. Conferences and analysts are hard to come by for a penny stock as well. Medical conferences, medical publications and similar are not hung up on the penny stock issue because they do not typically have to reference the company at all. So I will expect more of that kind of coverage. But even then, you have some quite astonishing results published in Nature and narry a mention in US popular press. Meanwhile if one person lives beyond 1 year with a treatment that is not even in trials in Australia, you see a slew of “breakthrough” headlines. This goes to show how artificial limits on media, put in place for good reasons but also senselessly followed, tend to not fully inform their audiences. They are trying NOT to be caught in securities litigation or promote stock frauds which was a problem at one time, but is not as much a problem now. Because they do not report on such companies, it has really not been an issue for mainstream media. But it also leaves those legitimate companies out in the cold. This gives room for the AF’s and similar to monopolize the small, drug development sector.
Actually, it makes the issue moot. It doesn’t make the case go away, but what damages? Basically none. The event previously voted for did not ultimately get completed until this vote, assuming it goes through.
So yeah, the plaintiff’s attorney will be fighting at most simply to see if they can salvage the cost of their efforts at litigation.
In other words, the remaining fight will be the lawyers trying to still get paid.
That’s a nice piece. Thanks Sukus!
Well said. I say this too. I never hang on haunting a board for a stock I have sold. And in fact generally, given the companies I invest in, I want them to do well even after I have moved on. I never have ill will toward companies that I have dropped. It’s just that sometimes it takes longer. Possibly the technology was not what they hoped, etc. I don’t hang on like an angry ghoul, spending all my time attacking such a company. There is too much opportunity and money to be made in the world to be like that. And I agree, the negative posters are too many, and too sophisticated in most cases to just be ghouls. Though there are one or two who do seem to verge on madness and being stalkers rather than paid detractors.
Yeah, agreed.
They always do this, no matter what company, they annual meetings for these tiny companies draw the sabotage your company flies, trying to get people to needlessly commit corporate seppuku so shorts can enrich themselves on the outcome. And sometimes they succeed.
What they all mostly want to do is disrupt and get the leadership out, creating a crisis of confidence, so the companies are directionless and then go bust. Doing it just before approval would be a serious opportunity for shorts.
The fake investors whom everyone who is here for long know are shorts, are really putting on a show today.
And I said I knew it was there and never denied it. That I let you and shorts post the SUBSEQUENT IA but used the case to explain it is not “unblinding” and specifically qualified it as up to that point, and that it provides a good explanation for how it works, and then took the language from that very JAMA report and gave you the explanation for why their use of it there to adjust their statistics PROVES just how rock solid the trial is.
But you persist at your false effort to suggest I did not know. But anyone with a brain can go back and see that ExW and I have touched on this before.
The court case was up to that point, as I qualified, but it explains the nature of such exercises including when the IA goes beyond safety only.
It’s not unblinding, and there is a statistical adjustment, which was done.
Why must you remain so dense. Right, it’s a job.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174470336
OK. Well, hating on management on the verge of approval is a THING. It is also a thing shorts do before EVERY annual meeting.
Nothing new here folks. Sabotage your company. It’s going to be “good”.
They don’t really communicate, a lot. And yeah, like most small biotech’s, they hope
And expect things to move faster than they do. But other than that, generally they deliver. So we disagree.
Yes, their non-stop work undermines the advance of this breakthrough and denies capital toward broader and faster validation. So, in the meantime, more people die because they do not yet have access to this treatment option.
It’s horrifying that such people exist and think their “work” has value. But this is the world we live in. For them, their work has value because they can generate income, likely a sizeable income, unfortunately, by bashing innovative companies in a complex and highly regulated part of the market.
This is total nonsense ATL. I explained why your wild speculations were not reasonable, and asked you for specific proof re the “formulas” for DCVax-L that your claims implied you knew. You could never do anything but link to patents which were not about current formulas but about possible future opportunities and combinations. You also were basically supporting Adam Feuerstein’s claims inadvertently, that there were multiple formulations of DCVax-L. Which seriously bothered me.
The reality is, based on my arguments with you, you subsequently changed what you were saying and now you basically are saying what I said, which is that it is given via IM injection, and there is not a DCVax-L version to be approved on this round that is different than the one in the trial.
I gave up on you because you insisted on things that did not match reality, based on what I call “wild googling”, which is a feature of naive approaches early on in such research.
After I pointed out that your statements about a pending version 2 of DCVax-L with poly-ICLC that would effectively change the formula was not likely, and explained, rather than conceding, you persisted in the argument, you just modified it to fit what is already happening. And then you pretended you never made those previously wild claims that were the subject of our disagreement.
I was posting on the poly-iclc opportunity and possibilities of approving a adjuvant long before you were, many, many months, if not years before. And after long research and lots of back and forth with people here had come to various conclusions about possibilities. But never would I have argued that before DCVax-L was approved they would roll out a new vaccine and try to get that approved based on the Phase 3 using the current version. But you went in wild directions of speculation that did not fit any regulatory model, and like I said, basically would have suggested there were different DCVax-L formulas, which again, was what Adam Feuerstein was claiming. Sometimes longs end up making the same arguments as shorts, and sometimes it is by accident, and sometimes they get confused and sometimes it’s on purpose. I eventually decided you were misguided but enthusiastic.
But as I said, you ultimately modified your point. I agreed with you the other day on Twitter. But pointed out that it’s not a new formulation of DCVax-L, it is just the same procedure that UCLA has been following for more than 10 years now with an adjuvant IM shot. Not a reformulation of the vaccine. Poly-ICLC is a drug by a different company. That would require a licensing agreeement which has not, as of yet, been put into place. Nor has it been announced that they were modifying the vaccine, and you would not do that after having just finished a Phase 3 based on a set formula. Your arguments at that time were what I would call a bit manic, and did nothing to help keep people focused on reality. And that can be quite destructive when claims are made that are not real and create false expectations. That too can be a form of bashing, though again, I concluded you were misguided rather than intentionally bashing by creating false expectations.
These shorts are so desperate DStock, that if they were not just total POS’, I’d almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
They are awful human beings. And more desperate than ever.
Nice paper DStock!
This is a pre-commercial company. Your comparison to Merck is profoundly off, as in dense and not really quite understanding reality. Ludicrous.
I was quoting the legal case I linked to… so not false. You’re false.
As for the partial halt, we do not know the origins, but we know from the court case that the safety IA went well and they decided to continue. You need to be specific and also factual.
Thanks for the clarification hyperopia. Yeah, I was not really referring to you in that initial post and so I was confused. Much appreciated.
Interesting timing.
Glad you have a sense of humor.
IC Light gave it to you though he did not point you to the right document. He doesn’t apparently know how to post links. It is in one of the supplemental documents, I believe the one from the consultants explaining their statistical approach. They disclose the IA, and then I plugged in all of JAMA, including those supplements, to ChatGPT, gave it just the section addressing the IA, and asked it to explain their discussion there, first in simple terms and then in more sophisticated statistical terms. Conclusion, they did exactly what they needed to do with that IA to ensure their conclusions in the JAMA paper are rock solid.
So, I carefully parsed my language if you did not read. My point was that the IA’s no matter what, safety or efficacy, as explained in the court case, do not unblind. In my reply, I said it was clear “up to that point”. Ex already points out regularly there is the disclosure in JAMA, but I am not here to do your work for you. I was ready to answer with the ChatGPT analysis of that section and disclosure and what it meant in the JAMA article instead.
But I was not going to do your work for you. That was up to you. No lies. My focus was on the actual matter of what an IA is about. That it is not an “unblinding”, that in fact, if you were still capable of pointing out the later detail, that it was not only disclosed in the JAMA paper, but carefully addressed statistically, to ensure the results of the JAMA paper were statistically rock solid. You haven’t argued with that. You’re drilling down into personal attacks because again, that is ALL you have: Distraction and Garbage.
This is ALL about the disclosure of the IA in the JAMA paper. That is all I plugged in here, plus the papers, were attached. I asked about the very section that you guys are talking about, the IA and what that section is about. I asked for a simple explanation for regular, non-statistically savvy people and then a more sophisticated response for the more statistically savvy. That’s the result. Inclusion of that information still leads to a ROCK SOLID conclusion.
You really have a learning disorder or something. My first post pointed you to the JAMA paper, for the answer. I presumed you could find it but apparently you could not, so you begged me for it, but I don’t do work for shorts. Your short pal brought it up and you pretended that I did not know about it, but that plus the case, which gives background on why such IA’s do not unblind, and that the IA found safety and the DSMB recommended continuation of the trial. It also explained why they did not have to and often do not disclose such IA information beyond the general.
I can’t help it that you keep playing dense. Or is it that you’re playing? You seem not to know very much that is very basic and that has been discussed over many years. I pointed you to it. I wasn’t initially going to break it down for you. But the post to which you responded is ONLY in reference to the disclosure of that information in the JAMA paper, the one I pointed to and the one you keep claiming I did not point to…
So here is a simplified explanation from ChatGPT about what the ancillary document reporting those details on the IA means... again, implying bad things for an unsophisticated audience is what shorts do.
For heaven's sake, read the post. I said it was in the JAMA article you DUNCE.
The only lie is your inability to accept that I pointed to the truth and your false allegation that I didn't actually point you right there. I do not even think that you remembered it was there until I said it. Are you so insecure in your understanding and belief that you need to falsely claim such things? Obviously so. LOL.
I said to read the JAMA paper and I said UP TO THAT POINT in my post. I guess you failed reading comprehension.
You're so deluded you can't read what people;post. You come back as if you discovered something when I pointed you right there to it in my previous post. When did that get published? After the Court Case. The court case explains that they are not unblinded by IA's, and that the DSMB found no safety issues. You really didn't prove anything since it is posted right there in the JAMA article which still concludes as it concluded. It did not undo or disprove anything. Just another implied bit of nonsense from shorts who have NOTHING.
Yeah, you can pay people on the internet to do just about anything. Global economy and all, you can pay very little for very intelligent people in other countries to do this kind of awful work, I have no doubt. Hedge funds have so much money, I have no doubt that some traders even individually can contract to ensure they make their numbers and not tell a soul. Plausible deniability. And with Crypto, it made it all that much easier.
That’s the common approach. And a safety review. There are no safety issues. Disclosed numerous times, like every time they discuss the treatment. They can’t make that up if the IA said something else. Again, is your short fund intern posting or is this really you?
That’s not the discussion we’re having at the moment. Like I said, you seem way out of your depth at the moment. Is your intern posting at this point?
Exactly, they do not care. It is all implication and distracting nonsense to keep people from seeing the positive and buying shares. They manufacture FUD, as we all know. That is their pointless, destructive job.
I am not here to educate you. It explains the nature of IA’s and no, they do not have to disclose results. That also has been discussed in depth here over the years. The court case explains that they are not unblinded. That the DSMB chose to continue the trial, NOT HALT it. You just have to learn to read, develop reading comprehension, just the basics.
Agreed. I do not expect these numbskulls to move on. And you have to wonder about people whose entire livelihood depends on posting false information on social media, about companies that other people invest in for the common good and to advance science. What kind of people would willingly have such careers for not just a year or two, many have done this for a decade and more. What kind of people are these? What are their morals? What kind of values do they have? Why can’t they do positive things for themselves and for others? They clearly cannot. This destructive behavior is literally ALL THEY HAVE in their empty, pointless lives.
No, that’s not what I said. I said it is all documented in the ruling I gave you and the JAMA paper and all you need to do is actually act diligently to know the facts rather than believing everything posted by shorts.
I provided you with a link to the ruling related to that matter through 2017. You also have the JAMA article.
That you agree with false notions promoted by a short is no surprise, but given how often this matter has been discussed and given my just previous post… which covers points you asked about, you might try to read stuff before agreeing.