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.
This is no longer a one-drug company, for one indication.
Do not forget that the potential epilepsy drug, promising in this early stage, gives the company a fall-back if something were to go wrong with the Alz drug.
In my opinion the epilepsy drug's potential warrants a share price of at least 60 or 70 cents/share right now, by itself. I am NOT saying that's what the stock should be trading at -- I'm saying that would be value of the stock WITHOUT the Alz drug -- and we do have the Alz drug.
**blush** yep
What we have now is anecdotal evidence from a small sample. But, I am unaware of any Alzheimer's drug having had this magnitude of anecdotal evidence at this stage of development. Given that this is a totally different mechanism of action than ALL of the previous failed drugs, it is promising.
People should only buy stock when they feel confident in their investment or think that the eventual pay-off is worth risking what they can afford to lose.
Everyone is looking for one of these:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=jazz&insttype=&freq=2&show=&time=12
20 cents to 180 bucks in 5 years.
Remember too that the potential epilepsy drug, with its good preliminary results, gives the company a fall-back if the Alzheimer's drug were to fail.
So you are saying that if I warn people the traders gangs may abandon the stock, and that people should not panic and sell their stock if that happens -- I am not pumping hard enough?
Absurdly, Shorter was criticizing Brilacidin for not killing bacteria that it wasn't designed to kill, and that are not involved in the kind of infections that the clinical trials are addressing.
By his absurd criterion that an antibiotic must work against all types of bacteria or it should not be approved, there would be NO antibiotics approved for any infection. In fact there are "niche" antibiotics that are used only for certain specific infections. The infections that Brilacidin has been shown to be effective against are NOT niche infections, they are infections that are very common. Given the proven efficacy so far in the clinical trials, the chances of FDA approval appear very high.
Claiming that Brilacidin is ineffective when it has already been PROVEN to be effective against certain infections, is absolutely wrong. The smallest amount of research would have proven to anyone who was writing an honest article that the claim that all of CTIX's drugs were "doomed to failure" was wrong and should not have been made.
Mark Twain said "there are 3 kinds of lies -- lies, dam* lies, and statistics."
I am NOT calling you a liar, but I think your statistic does not reflect the situation accurately.
Yes indeed, drug companies have wasted billions of dollars researching drugs that do not work. The mistake they have made is that they have focused entirely on removal of amyloid plaques. This has been shown NOT be be significantly helpful in fighting the disease, and in some cases the drugs that measurably DID remove amyloid plaques actually made the symptoms worse.
How could this be? Some scientists, who have been scorned by the establishment, think that the amyloid plaques are not the cause of the disease but are a symptom. Just as your body forms a blood clot to stop the bleeding, what if an amyloid plaque is the body's defense against the Alzheimer's damage? If someone has a bad cut, does stripping the blood clot off so that they start bleeding again HELP them?
So Big Pharma has spend vast fortunes on pursuing a wrong pathway. Their drugs don't work well, if at all.
AVXL's drugs work differently and are trying to get ahead of the disease, into one of the occurrences that happens before the plaques form. The theory is that AVXL's drugs prevent protein misfolding, before the amyloid plaques can form. Note that I do not say that AVXL's drug goes after the CAUSE of Alzheimer's because we don't know what causes the protein mis-folding to start happening. The root cause of the protein misfolding is further upstream than AVXL's drug. But that is NOT to say it can't be an effective treatment -- a tourniquet or direct pressure, followed by stitches, is a very effective treatment for a cut, and it doesn't go after the root cause of the cut -- which was the sharp knife.
In at least one case you are incorrect about bashing. All comments with a negative component are not bashing.
In fact, I have warned that I believe that the traders' gangs have been somewhat openly involved with AVXL, as they were (and posted on THIS board about) this stock:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=tpiv&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=7
My warning that this could go down CLEARLY stated my belief that this company is on to something, and was a warning to people not to be discouraged and fooled into selling their stock by a move down.
It does real shareholders no long-term good when a stock is pumped up to unsustainable high levels very quickly. Those who buy near the top get burned, and either sell when their losses get to a certain percentage as the stock falls -- never to buy the stock again -- or they wait for the stock to reach that level again, and then sell. This is bad for the stability of the stock price. It also raises false expectations.
I find it interesting that in the past couple of days I've been accused of being both a pumper and a basher. I guess I must be doing something right.
You are very astute and in my opinion correct in many of your observations. Shorting for an individual in these penny stocks is very difficult (some online brokers simply won't allow it) and requires a lot of capital if one CAN borrow shares and short. However there are some brokers who allow it.
Your observations about the types of posts are dead on. Also your theories about what their motives might be.
One thing though that should be taken into account is the traders' gangs, some of which openly recruit people to join their groups. When you see someone pumping a stock, then disappearing during the late stages of the run-up and during the tanking of the stock, only to appear pumping again when the stock stabilizes, that should tell you something.
And don't forget the 14-year-old-in-the-basement theory either. I've been on some boards where it seemed clear that some of the really immature comments were age-appropriate to the poster.
Once again, here is the classic example, mentioned with exultation by many who have also posted here:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=tpiv&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=7
I hope people remember who were involved in that one and if they see those people involved with their own investments, take heed.
I have observed short squeezes though, or maybe a "short panic" would be a more apt description. I don't think they are as rare as you think.
One can draw their own conclusions based on who is here and who ISN'T here. Some bulls may be demoralized and vanished, so don't assume all who left were merely pumping. But, what's interesting is that all of those new bears vanished -- where are they? They softened people up so that when the article hit the suckers would panic. I suppose we'll have to put up with their droppings again tonight and tomorrow, when the next attack comes.
KNOW that the FDA, Dana-Farber, and independent entities that do the testing have credibility. Anonymous attacks do not. The science is strong and a hatchet job by some guy on the internet has no credibility. The company would have been underpriced at 5/share; people with the guts to buy now will have gains beyond our imaginings, in a few years. And probably awfully good gains pretty soon.
The use of "revealed" and other wording would in a perfect world open the law firm to liability, as having made an assertion of veracity of fact. They may be relying on the sad truth that it is very difficult or impossible to find an attorney who will sue another attorney. The use of "revealed" did reveal something to some astute readers -- that this aggressive, assertive wording, coupled with the extremely short time between the article's publication and the law firm's press release, makes one wonder whether the law firm had advance notice.
I wonder whose opinion I should value more, some guy on the internet who isn't very familiar with the company and seems to have an agenda, or should I believe the FDA, Dana-Farber Institute, other scientific institutions, and the evidence I can read and understand myself from the poster presentations at major scientific conferences?
That should answer any questions anyone had about the damning-with-faint-praise this guy published recently.
F1ash the author has been proven wrong on all of the scientific claims by Mr. Ehrlich's rebuttal. Anyone with any sense at all would say "who knows more about the science, the FDA, the Dana-Farber Institute, the other scientific institutions involved in research, and the CEO of the company -- or some anonymous guy on the internet? Note that the author first claims he hired an "INDEPENDENT" scientist, and then claims he has this "scientist" on his STAFF. Which is it? independent hired for the hatchet job, or on staff?
As you point out, the claimed "scientific" opinion is absolutely wrong. The author's refusal to name a scientist more than casts doubt on the existence of such a person. And if such a person were to exist, s/he is obviously utterly incompetent.
The other claims in the article are equally laughable and easily shown to be untrue. For instance, the very first claim that the offices are empty, in a deserted building, is shown to be untrue by a quick Google search about the building. The picture supposedly taken during business hours clearly shows pitch-black windows not consistent with an office building before 5 p.m. at the height of summer.
Why are we bothering to discuss specifics about this clearly utterly wrong hatchet job that, even based on one statement alone, his claim that the management will "pilfer the cash" from the company, can be shown to have actual malice?
We should be focusing on how to fight back. For starters, we need to fill out that complaint for to the NY attorney general. There is also a complaint form to the SEC -- does anyone have a link to that too?
Childish response. Readers here are aware that I have been long from .31. Your silly attack certainly does not reflect on MY credibility.
Yes, I think that Rosen erred badly with that. They have made an assertion of fact. This leaves them also liable. The person who repeats a libel or defamation has the same liability as the person who first utters it. ("utter" is a term of art here, I'm not just being weird in my phraseology.)
However it is VERY difficult to get a lawyer who's willing to sue another lawyer. Seeking Alpha and the author of the libelous article are the easy targets here.
I meant the ones who post here. There are some who are sincerely very bullish on this stock. There are others who are pumpers. If you can stand it, go back and see who posted when. A pattern emerges.
I don't think people are shorting. I think what we're going to see is the pumpers dumping.
I'm not worried in the long run.
Longer term this could be a huge winner. Short term I think the scumbags are playing games.
I don't view the pullback as been short selling. It's awfully hard for individuals to short these stocks. I think it's more likely that the people who were pumping the stock are taking the profits. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the leaders of the groups took profits and will tell their followers to get out next week (now that the leaders have front-run them).
I have utter confidence in my investment. The libelous actions of a shorters' syndicate have in NO way shaken my confidence that eventually these drugs will be approved, will save lives, and will make early investors (anyone who has bought already or who plans to buy next week) very wealthy.
I'm trying not to feed the trolls, as irritating as they are. Especially the trolls who openly say they have no position.
The one thing that concerns me about AVXL is the level of interest some of the traders' gangs have taken in this stock. It does NOT do long-term investors any good when the groups decide to run the stock up -- and then it collapses when they take their profits and run. It burns shareholders, and human nature is for people never to want to even hear the name of the company again when they get burned that way.
Here is a recent example of one such operation:
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=tpiv&insttype=&freq=1&show=&time=7
I think your concerns are misplaced. Once a mechanism of action is discovered and a drug is developed, there are possibilities for continued development, First, the company that owns the intellectual property is going to continue researching because the patents DO expire fairly quickly on drugs; improving or altering it slightly gives them more years of patent protection. Others who wish to "add on" to the drugs can get licensing agreements. Drugs which are very similar but not identical can be developed.
The far greater issue is the ability for companies going against the "conventional wisdom" to get financing. I wonder how many potentially effective drugs never made it to human trials, because smaller companies, typically run by less "connected" and experienced management, were not able to survive to that stage. One need only look at the entirely new class of antibiotics of which Brilacidin is the flagship, to see a horrifying example of how a potentially life-saving, breakthrough drug might never have gotten to the current Phase 3 clinical trials because of the ineptitude of the previous company's management. Fortunately this drug has been saved by being purchased by a much better company which is going to see this through to seeking FDA approval -- but what of the many other drugs out there that did NOT get rescued this way? Are there other drugs like Brilacidin which are languishing in the graveyard of some company's file of un-researched drugs?
AVXL was very nearly one of those companies whose intellectual property did NOT get developed. We owe as shareholders and human beings, a huge vote of thanks to Dr. Missling for turning the Titanic away from the iceberg and getting us to this point.
What gets me is seeing AXON have 4 times the market cap of AVXL, when their only "product" is a failed drug bought cheaply from another company which shelved it, and then AXON was able to get a huge market cap, with no human trials in sight. To me THIS is the real scandal -- Wall Street insiders creating a company based on vaporware, while a company with real, groundbreaking research (AVXL) languishes in the weeds. How many more AVXL-like companies are out there, that we don't know about, and which can't pursue their research because of under-funding?
THAT'S what to worry about, not patent protection.
CTIX's science IS impeccable. Everything has been done in accordance with generally accepted methods and principles of scientific inquiry. For those who do not understand the science, one need only look at the fact that not only are all 3 drugs in human trials for 4 different indications, Brilacidin has received the FDA's coveted QIDP designation. (Brilacidin does double duty, being in trials as both an antibiotic, and for the treatment of oral mucositis, which may capitalize on Brilacidin's seeming anti-inflammatory properties as well as its antibiotic efficacy.)
There is NO credible shareholder's lawsuit against CTIX. The attack on this company through the Seeking Alpha article was purely on false statements which the most cursory of research would have revealed to the author the falsity of the claims. It is reasonable to suppose that when someone writes an article which utterly ignores the FDA approval of ongoing trials, the presentation of preliminary results at various scientific conferences, and the various other information which has been made publicly available, that there is a motive other than presenting factual information.
Additionally, allegations of projected future thievery by the company officers were voiced, on the basis of absolutely NO foundation of fact. There is NO way for a company to protect against an attack like this because no reasonable person would expect that such a collection of lies would be publically disseminated. Furthermore, the refusal of Seeking Alpha to remove this article despite the complaints of factual inaccuracy that many of us have sent to them, should show people that there is more at work here than just one lone person getting a few facts wrong.
I am confident that those who understood the science and the potential that this company has were not fooled into selling their stock. I hope that any who DID sell will buy back at these absurdly low levels. And I hope that any people who have been attracted to this message board will understand the potential in this company and think about their investment strategy accordingly.
CTIX has the first new type of antibiotic since 1987;
a potential treatment for a debilitating side effect of chemotherapy and radiation (oral mucositis);
a possible cure or combination treatment for certain forms of cancer;
a possible treatment or cure for psoriasis -- a NON-biologic which therefore is easier to manufacture and probably would have many fewer side effects than current drugs.
This is an enormous buying opportunity here -- one that we long-time shareholders would have preferred not to have, given the unscrupulous attack on this company -- but one that would be foolish to ignore.
It is incredibly expensive to develop drugs. NO ONE would put up the money to develop drugs if there were no patent, and anyone could immediately manufacture and sell it. Companies ought to be rewarded for taking the risk. The problem that I have with drug companies is that they gouge people because they can. There needs to be some kind of regulation so that the companies get their investment returned to them, and make a good profit -- but they don't have these ridiculous things like charging people thousands of dollars a month for a drug that costs them only a few bucks to manufacture.
It's hard to see how to design a system that would work -- too bad people can't be trusted to act in a fair and compassionate manner.
Sorry about your grandmother, this is a terrible disease. AVXL's drugs are the best hope now. It angers me to think of the billions of dollars and tremendous scientific effort squandered on trying to remove the amyloid tangles after all the failed drugs trying to work on that same pathway. Researchers trying to pursue other mechanisms of action have had a great deal of difficulty getting funded, and have often been ridiculed. If AVXL succeeds it will have been against great odds and against the "conventional wisdom" -- which is and has been WRONG.
I agree CTIX is much further ahead in terms of getting close to having a drug approved. However as we know fickle ignorant people go for the trendy news story flavor of the month because, well, they are stupid. Just look at how stupid it was for people to be panicked out of CTIX.
So the other possibly could take another run up, because the pumper/dumper gangs have run it up at least two times that I have observed. I am actually going to sell some of it to buy more CTIX on Monday because the very large number of pumpers on that on almost guarantee a move down as they take profits and leave the bagholders. Of course if the pumpers decide to act in concert to run it up again, I could be wrong.
We have had a very good, well not good, make that "big," lesson in exactly what unscrupulous criminals can do to a stock.
I hope that people will NOT encourage those pumpers to get back into CTIX. We really do not want those people getting interested in manipulating CTIX again.
There is quite the silence from the bears here today, except for one in the "nyah nyah nyah" category. They will reappear Sunday night. Be prepared for another onslaught on Monday. Have courage, use any dry powder to buy more, and you will be richly rewarded in a fairly short time.
Since the idea of "smell" has been voiced, I will say that those hardy surviving bulls still here know EXACTLY what the smell is, and where it is coming from.
Many of us here are in that other stock, and of course anything that can offer a better treatment for that dread disease would be a welcome development sheerly on the basis of simple compassion and humanity.
The only thing that bothers me is to see the profits made by the scum that have promoted and sold that stock several times while I have been observing it. That's another case where anguish is being caused to naive shareholders as they buy in high and see it fall back. That stock also needs the core shareholders who understand what stock they own. CTIX unfortunately now has that base of shareholders, involuntarily, since the naive and those who did not understand their investment panicked and sold. I can only imagine how they will feel when this stock is much, much higher very soon.
SeekingAlpha has still not removed the article despite the emails from many of us detailing blatant falsehoods. They also never responded at all to mine to say they had received it (as they did to someone else here).
Therefore, the fact that they have been informed of this and still refuse to remove something that has been PROVEN to be untrue by the CEO of the company, and other statements in the article have been PROVEN to be untrue by various members of this board, should tell you something.
No reputable publication would allow someone to print an accusation that the insiders would "likely" steal from the company.
Seeking Alpha is now in a position to be sued for defamation, since they have refused to remove an article which has clearly been shown to be false and defamatory. I for one would be happy to contribute to a CTIX legal defense fund to sue these creatures.
YES, tduggan, you're right, it was Amarantus as it was called at that time. Thanks for remembering, or finding the info, whichever it was.
Yes, MCT oil and coconut oil are things that seem to help Alzheimer's patients, and my feeling is -- if we take them now, maybe if we have the genetic (or environmental or whatever, who knows) tendency to get the disease, maybe we can slow it down by giving our brains the nourishment they need.
BUT -- be VERY careful adding MCT oil to your diet. Take NO MORE than 1/4 teaspoon at a time the first several days, and increase the amount GRADUALLY after that, or you will suffer dire intestinal consequences.
Trust me on this. :-O
Ziggy, thanks for finding the articles. This third one is really the worthwhile one -- the first one had so many errors (and referenced papers that weren't at those links, although "protect you noggin" one was (gack) that it isn't worth taking anyone's time to discuss.
First let me say that exercise is important for may reasons. So is good diet (especially a diet that has plenty of the GOOD fats that are needed for brain function). Anyone who is taking statin drugs should note the alarming increase in cognitive problems among statin users. A physician who was also an astronaut has written articles and books about this, based on his own experience. (And, statin drugs do NOT reduce the risk of death in any but the very small sub-set of people who have the genetic condition hypercholestemia. My own personal belief is that statin drugs are dangerous, have potentially terrible side effects, and should be banned for all except that very small group. But that's another topic.)
Anyway here is the fatal flaw in all those articles:
They are testing the effect of exercise on cognitive function on healthy adults. There is no long-term study that tracks exercise amounts from mid-life into old age, and the relative development of Alzheimer's. Sure, maybe exercise might help current Alzheimer's patients to some extent -- but it is NOT something that will prevent Alzheimer's, because Alzheimer's is caused by a mechanism that is yet not understood. Perhaps (I sure hope) AVXL is correct that it is caused by protein misfolding, and this can be stopped and perhaps some of the damage reversed. BUT, what causes the protein misfolding? We don't know.
There is a terrible tendency to blame the victim in these Alzheimer's cases. Yes, some people drink to excess (though whether they have Alzheimer's or alcohol-related dementia is a good question to ask), or eat so unhealthily that develop diabetes which IS a risk factor (but please note that many, many people who get diabetes are healthy, non-overweight people who exercise and eat right -- but either they lost the genetic lottery, or they got exposed to a virus which either causes it or which triggers an auto-immune response. I personally know TWO such people.)
In any case, Alzheimer's strikes people of all weights and levels of exercise, all economic groups, those who eat healthily as well as those who don't. Do not make the mistake of blaming the victim for this disease -- or of thinking that you and your family and friends are immune to it. And don't think that doing crossword puzzles and exercising will protect you. They may help you in other ways, but they will NOT prevent you from getting a disease that we absolutely do not understand --- yet.
There a a LOT of Alzheimer's patients who did everything right but still got this awful, awful disease.
jason_luke, I was agreeing with you, not saying you're a flipper. I think the flippers sometimes fail to figure out that they're better off holding even through a downturn -- like you are doing with your excellent low-basis buys.
Do you have a link for a study that proves that exercise increases neuron production? This would be difficult to prove in HUMANS since that would involve having someone exercise, and then as we euphemistically say, "sacrifice" them so that slides of brain tissue could be examined.....
(that's a joke by the way, for the humor impaired)
Short-term capital gains tax will kill ya, unless you're flipping shares in an IRA. Think about the size of the move you'll need to make it profitable AFTER TAXES to flip stock.
I will say that it would not surprise me one bit to see this stock fluctuate wildly -- including WELL below a dollar. There are too many pumper/dumper traders' gangs involved in this stock currently.
Exercise: which is the chicken, which is the egg? Do people exercise and therefore they get Alzheimer's less frequently, or do people who do not have Alzheimer's feel physically and mentally better so they are ABLE to exercise? Remember the first subtle symptoms often start 20 years before diagnosis.
There have been NO studies which are definitive on "lifestyle" being a risk factor. (There are many studies which claim such things, but a careful reading of them shows the flaws in their methodology.)
However there is one thing you CAN do: one theory is that in some people, as their brains age, they lose the ability to metabolize glucose. Therefore, their brains essentially starve to death (and create the amyloid tangles). However, unlike other cells, brain cells can directly use medium chain triglycerides as "fuel." MCT oil is used by body builders, and is readily available. MCT's are also found in coconut oil.
There have been remarkable improvements in Alzheimer's patients who have had MCT oil and coconut oil added to their diets. I won't go into specifics because there are many articles and websites that you can search for more information. There is also a "nutraceutical" that has a proprietary formulation involving MCT oil -- some people think that it's easier to use than the MCT/coconut oil combination.
Anyone who wants to try this for themself or someone they know that has Alzheimer's, be warned: you must introduce MCT oil VERY slowly into the diet because it can have an extreme laxative effect. When I say very carefully, I mean start with 1/4 teaspoon.
Doesn't the fact that SA is allowing the article to stand, despite the complaints with documentation that at least some of us sent, tell you something?
Attention conspiracy theorists....
Yes, I agree (please see my "I stand corrected" post).
I stand corrected. Didn't think of that. (eom)
Rdunn88 I've agreed with so many of your recent posts. However in this case, as I said in another post, this could have happened on any exchange. Here is the article about such a happening on the NASDAQ this past July 14:
http://www.inquisitr.com/2251786/fake-twitter-buyout-story-shares-surge/
Here's one on Avon, in which a press release announcing a buy-out was sent out internationally, and then was proven to be a fake:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IQ57J80.htm
The exchange doesn't matter for things like this. What DOES matter is the size of the company -- market cap. The SEC actually DID investigate those two happenings. It's doubtful they will investigate this one unless we can make a big enough stink.
Ask the banks and the senators and representatives to whose campaigns they contribute heavily to, to ask them why the SEC doesn't enforce things like this. The SEC will say that they do not have the budget to examine all the complaints they receive -- and they are correct. Congress continually cuts them off at the knees. (I won't go into the other problems with the SEC itself because I'd like to have time to do something else this weekend.... lol )
This is what Elizabeth Warren has been saying, a lone voice in the wilderness, for years. Whatever you may think of her views on other issues, how can anyone disagree that the small investors are getting screwed as the "too big to fail" banks run wild? If the giant banks did not make sure that the stock markets remained the Wild West, these guys couldn't get away with stuff like this.