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.
Corrected/better version of my last post:
Isn't AVII the one that brings up the FDA's broad look at the ITT population? Maybe "Intent to Treat" is not a good name for that group. The information arm patients are treated with DCVax-L. One must assume that doesn't happen accidentally; that there is an "Intent to Treat" prior to treatment, in spite of the fact that they are not part of the trial.
If a large number of mesenchymal patients were filtered into the information arm, as AVII argues, then what would AVII say about the health of the information arm patients being considered by the FDA?
If analysis that includes the information arm shows a 90% CR for patients that are both mesenchymal and respond to temozolomide... and that subgroup constitutes a large percentage of GBM patients, ie 30%... then how could the FDA ignore that?
I remember watching a video of a presentation by a senior FDA member about 18 months or so ago where the official said that the FDA can and will grant early marketing authorization with required confirmatory trials, for outstanding results shown in very small trials, even without controls, for indications that have no current effective therapies. He said as small as a dozen patients, then corrected himself, and said even a much smaller numbers of patients.
Although I have not been able to find that presentation in recent searches, at least one other poster, more credible than myself, remembered seeing it too.
That presentation may have been the FDA's appeasing of the public after the "Dallas Buyer's Club" gained so much attention. I believe the timing was about right. Maybe the FDA back-peddled and deleted all traces of the presentation from the internet after the furvor died down... but it is hard to forget the presentation, and hard not to wonder why the efficacy I describe above, if shown in the DCVax-Trials for mesenchymal patients that respond to temozolomide (tumor shows methylated MGMT promoter), would not beg such an early marketing approval.
Isn't AVII the one that brings up the FDA's broad look at the ITT population? Maybe "Intent to Treat" is not a good name for this group. The information arm are treated with DCVax-L. One must assume that doesn't happen accidentally, that there is an "Intent to Treat" prior to treatment, in spite of the fact that they are not part of the trial.
If a large number of mesenchymal patients were filtered into the information arm, then what would AVII say about the health of the information arm patients being considered by the FDA?
If analysis that includes the information arm shows a 90% CR for patients that are both mesenchymal and respond to temozolomide... and that subgroup constitutes a large percentage of GBM patients, ie 30%... then how could the FDA ignore that?
I remember watching a video of a presentation by a senior FDA member about 18 months or so ago where the official said that the FDA can and will grant early marketing authorization with required confirmatory trials, for results shown in very small trials, even without controls, for indications that have no current effective therapies. He said as small as a dozen patients, then corrected himself, and said even a much smaller numbers of patients.
Although I have not been able to find that presentation in recent searches, at least one other person, more credible than myself, remembered seeing it too.
That presentation may have been the FDA's appeasing of the public after the "Dallas Buyer's Club" gained so much attention. I believe the timing was about right. Maybe the FDA back-peddled and deleted all traces of the presentation from the internet after the furvor died down... but it is hard to forget the presentation, and hard not to wonder why the efficacy I describe above, if shown in the DCVax-Trials for mesenchymal patients that respond to temozolomide (tumor shows methylated MGMT promoter), would not beg such an early marketing approval with required confirmatory to follow.
They give GBM patients steroids when they see inflammation of lesions?
I understand that excessive inflammation in the fixed skull volume is very dangerous and must be controlled, but the mode of action of an immunotherapy is inflammation... controlling it is suppression of the treatment. So I hope the criterion for administering steroids, assuming they are to reduce inflammation, is that there is excessive pressure in the brain or the likelyhood of reaching that situation if steroids are not administered.
Very nice video. Very nice guy.
I hadn't watched the video until now. In my recent posts, I was responding only to a news article linked.
One detail I am now remembering about her story was that she had become somewhat the face of the right to die campaign, and that intertia clearly weighed on her at the end. She changed her mind a couple days before the planned date... then struggled, in part because of her feeling that she had the responsibility to carry through as the spokesperson for the campaign. I certainly agree with the marine's concerns about that situation. I think he did address that specifically.
I did email her telling her to please let go of that unreasonable concern. It was about her now... She probably recieved hundreds of similar emails. Who knows how many she read.
I understand what the marine is saying, and I understand that the future patients are more important than the single past patient... but I wish he, or the author had been a little more carefull in their wording. In the end she was a super sweet, scared, victim of a frightening disease. You should read about her work around the world in education, before she grew ill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany_Maynard
I followed the Brittany Maynard story in the final weeks and days. I appreciate the weight of what this Marine is saying, but I don't like him sullying her legacy.
To say that they had the same condition is likely a mistatement. As you know there are many subgroups and variation in mutations within the subgroups. I don't know the details of these two patient's tumors, but I would not assume that this marine knows either.
His point that he does not want anyone to feel that they should just die to avoid expenses is a very good point. To the extent that making assisted suicide legal would generate such emotion, then his point is important. But two other sides to that multi-faceted coin; it is not the patient's responsibility to support the medical industry, and the separation of church and state is part of the US constitution.
Brittany's concern was that if she degenerated into a painful situation she might not be functional enough to have a say in her future, even after moving to Oregon where assisted suicide was legal.
Assuming Brittany's concern was real; if even the Oregon laws were relaxed to accomodate that concern, then she would not have committed suicide on a pre-chosen date. She would have waited till the last minute. And she would have received the last email that I sent to her, the night before she died, begging her to get genetic testing to determine which drugs/therapies might benefit her.
I wrote to Les Goldman about a month or so ago stating just that: That in the final weeks, days, and hours of the Brittany Maynard story, the smoke progressively cleared, leaving the most disturbing glaring fact, that many patients go into GBM treatment not knowing if their genetics align with that treatment. It's crazy!
That was why I was so happy to read the post a few days ago linking to a report about the feds' Moonshot program to cure cancer. According to the report, the program includes a plan to allow patients involved to get genetic testing prior selecting treatment.
Such a plan brings up some very difficult questions about how to test efficacy across all subgroups, once preliminary subgroup efficacy data is at hand, but the answer has to be that patients and their physicians have all such information available to them as they select a given treatment path.
ICT-107 placebo showed efficacy? I vaguely recall reading an article that said that IMUC, or perhaps it was another company / dendritic cell therapy, believed that their live DC control had shown an unexpected level of efficacy. What I think I read was that the only placebo they could come up with that satisfied everyone was the patient's live DC's, unexposed to antigen, but that unexpectedly resulted in some efficacy.
Does anybody remember reading any such report? Did I imagine that? Was it another company / trial?
IMUC believes that their live DC placebo had shown efficacy. My recollection is vague on this, which makes it questionable, but I think I read that IMUC has concluded that their use of a live Dendritic Cell placebo has tainted their results because these DC's, though not exposed to antigen, did have some efficacy... or did I hallucinate that?
I did a quick search for such a statement and did not find it. But some company, somewhere, that used live DC's for the placebo, and just didn't expose them to antigen, concluded that this was in fact occuring.
If so, a sweet and sour conclusion. If the efficacy for the control was large enough, then the extra steps of antigen exposure would be unnecessary... on the other hand, assuming there was still a significant increase in efficacy with antigen exposure, this would simply be an unfair test. In that case, the true test would be whether the FDA can properly arbitrate. The FDA would have the technical excuse of failing an additional 3.9 months PFS... but should they, if all indications are that the placebo was giving ie 3 months extra pfs (over what RK?... yes that is the problem, but if vs historical norms of the same era, for two different companies trials... then can you ignore that?).
Apparently for some subgroups this issue will be moot, although it would effect reimbursement levels, which are not quantized as go / no-go.
Does Northwest use living DC's as the placebo (unexposed to the tumor lysate) ? Can the FDA deal with this, or will they pull a Nurse Ratchet on NWBO? If they do, should we send Jack Nickolson or Matthew McConaughey to the White House to protest? (Maybe send McConaughey and friends to the White-House, but Jack Nickolson, solo, to the FDA!).
"If we're still as uninformed as we are now, I'll hop, skip and jump on over there."
I swear I was typing my last post as you typed this / before I read your post. (Happens a lot) I do remember your introduction to the board... including your being from Orange County.
I should have said "Long Timer".
Yes, I remember that post. Good memory!
Not sure how well I would do reporting the ongoings down in LA, but I will seriously think about it. The poster you are referring to, that discussed a hike, is an MD. I will try to remember his screen name and talk with him about possibly going to LA. Not sure if he is still following NWBO. I will find out.
But it would be good if some of the more dedicated followers could make it down there. I have been in and out. Usually out trying to make money to buy $nwbo, but sometimes just plain out until the next apparent catalyst... There are people that have been here continously.
Though Flipper is Canadian, I think he is west coast. It's a beautiful drive! We could carpool from Nor Cal.
Senti!!!!
Senti is from Orange County as I recall. Not as close to LA as you might think, but close enough. And she is pretty serious about the DCVax's. If you knew her history, you would understand why.
Senti and Flipper, and the Doc from the talk about the walk... and I... maybe.
Many brokers still use snail mail statements and telephone trades, exclusively. Neither of those can be examined using software, and the volume of trades is too large to deal with manually. I don't believe there is any scheduled plan to change that. That would be the first step.
Your Canadian. I'm a US citizen. Living here I have seen a huge amount of corruption at the local levels. These reports about the Flash Crash being untraceable due to large entities not being willing to parse out composite information, in the midst of the "Patriot Act" just added to my assessment that I live in a very crooked country. Hard not to btch about it when the opportunity arises.
Something must be done... but let me ask you, what good are regulations about reporting details when the gist is that there are people that don't have to report period.
"With FDA requiring cross over arm,"
I did make note of that statement by LL. (I say LL to prevent me from mispelling Linda Lau).
For literally years we have debated here whether the FDA could possibly approve DCVax-L based on progression alone with no pure survival data to also consider. The argument by the bears had been that Northwest had shot themselves in the foot by adding crossover.
But this statement by LL indicates that it was the FDA that called for crossover, not Northwest. So... that is a very different situation. This argument all these years has been over nothing.
You must be an old dog with a new name antihama.
Maybe I will do that.
U Gray Chi?
That doesn't quite cover everything RBSky. LL presented follow-up data to the early DCVax-L clinicals that shows a 25% survival rate beyond 5 years, and suggested it is now about 6 1/2 years for most of that 25%. An apparent cure for 25% of GBM patients while survival beyond 5 years has typically been about 4%. Wow!!!!
What I worry about, and expected you to bring up is this reported positioning of Woodford and 3M(?) to sell shares. People are acting like that is a good thing here. Why is that a good thing? Woodford was in for the long haul... now not so much?
Could short activity be monitored better ? When the "Flash Crash" occurred they concluded after about six months of analysis that they could not conclude anything. They can't trace who did what.
At least that is what I remember happening...
----
Yet I am told that since I have a margin account that everything I trade has my name on it. Not just visible to the Feds... but apparently to anyone with means.
TD told me that if I had a Roth (or perhaps other IRA's), my name would not be on trades. I asked what about a Non-IRA, Non-Margin account.... just a regular account. They told me they could not answer that question.
----
The feds record every internet activity for posterity... for post analysis to fight trrsm. And they screen every phone call for key words, and record the call if any key words or phrases generate interest.... and they know that the financing of terrorism is often done through the stockmarket... such as shorting the stock of a company that will be damaged by a trrst act... but they cannot trace down what happened in the flash crash because there are business entities more powerful than the fed that don't care to provide such information.
That is my understanding.
So... could we track shorts better...? No. There are powerful people that don't care to cough up such information... so no, we can't.
From the article you linked,
"The trials will collectively enroll up to 20,000 patients with all stages of cancer. In what was hailed as a first in the U.S., patients participating in the program will be guaranteed access to coverage of next-generation whole genome sequencing and proteomic diagnostics designed to match them to the appropriate therapeutic regimen from day one of their treatment."
That's progress! Bravooooooo!
Even if it brings up some very difficult questions about how to construct proper blinded trials if this practice becomes common even for people in trials.
Does that mean DCVax-L will not become a base treatment for all GBM and possibly all gliomas if such analysis becomes common before clinical trials? I don't know. Could be. Or maybe such analysis would just be used to determine what further adjuncts would be appropriate.
What is the efficacy demonstrated so far for DCVax-L outside of the mesenchymal subgroup? The long tail is all mesenchymal, but for those that do not get 5+ years OS there is still efficacy... how much?
"Merci pour les sages paroles."
I don't know about that. IMO a smart parolee could be more dangerous than a dumb parolee. There is a greater chance that they fooled the parole board to begin with.
?Median OS or PFS a poor measure for DCVax-L Efficacy?
LL in her video showed CR for 25% of patients. That seems huge to me.
I don't want to overstate that because I am still out, wheeling and dealing to get more $ fast before the deal here vanishes. In fact; once again had my foot caught in a giant clam 2000 leagues under the sea, for nearly 5 weeks. The clam tricked me into the situation. Flat out lied. Finally, after 5 weeks, I cut off my foot to escape, and literally 5 minutes later the clam opened it's shell. I hate giant clams.
Now trying to find another foot somewhere before I swim over to NWBO.
The 25% CR for DCVax-L is all mesenchymal according to LL. Flipper showed data indicating 49% of GBM patients are mesenchymal. So half of those are showing complete response. Isn't temozolomide effective in about half of GBM patients? If so, is it as simple as low MGMT expression + mesenchymal + DCVax-L = complete response?
Here is one article stating, "MGMT promoter methylation was found in 43.1% of glioblastoma". If 57% don't express MGMT, then that's about right. 57% of patients responding to temador, but maybe the 6% discrepancy from perfect 51% here to yield 25% CR could be attributed to imperfections in the process. That would be a heck of a lot better than the chess master is claiming. Of course these % numbers are not nailed down quite tight enough in these studies to worry about this small discrepancy anyway.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180167/
Above is in part to allow corrections to how I am viewing this. But where I am going with this is to a concern about Median PFS being the measure of efficacy here. The same concern would apply if the measure was Median OS.
If you had a therapy with a 49% CR, but the other 51% had no improvment, the median improvement would be 0. That sucks, because a CR of 49% would be the an absolute miracle.
So surely the FDA does not look at just median efficacy... nor the PEI for either approval or HE reimbursement... right? I know that many of you know the answer to this.
Of course that is not the exact situation here, but I got the impression from LL that it could be a little bit like this. Further, many subgroups are defined, and one is likely this combination of proper methylation status and mesenchymal; constituting 28% of GBM patients showing a CR in 90%. Wow!
(Assuming the methylation status accounts for the missing 51% factor)
Currently green in a sea of red. Knock on wood. I have a watchlist of about 15 smallcap biotechs, and every one of them is in the red right now except for TPIV. So... that's something.
They did recently post a webcast slide that stated, "Phase 2 trial(s) to start in 2015". The stock was up 17% the next day, and continued up to over 50% within a few days as a direct result. They also stated that one of the phase 2's would include a partner.
So... maybe you are technically right that there was not a promise of a partnership announcement by the end of the year, but there was the promise of a phase 2 starting.
One might wonder if they deliberately dangled that out there to keep interest through the year end tax selloff.
There are many possibilities for why news of a partnership has been delayed. Some are not so good, though the partnership does not seem to be built into the SP at all. Wasn't it ranging from $.57 to $.64 for a long time, back before partnership negotiations were announced?
I agree that one of the more positive possibilities would be that an acquisition is being considered. I decided not to bring that up for fear of dissappointing, but it does seem like a possibility to me.
There was another immunotherapy company acquired about a month ago for about $600M. The company acquired had only gone through phase 1 on the key product, and they had acquired rights to that product from a clinic.
Probably not what is going on... but possible.
I should not have said that they have to sell warrants (with each major catalyst). What I meant was that any emerging biotech that uses warrants as part of financing (and most do) has to want outstanding warrants excercised with each major catalyst.
So, you really did talk to Glynn?
I think the investor conferences are often standard show and tell to stay on the radar of the investment community. Planned long in advance and with or without catalysts.
If you look at how quiet this site and the yhoo site have been in the last weeks, it was not a good time to announce a catalyst. They do want to sell warrants with each major catalyst. They have to.
It has been dead here meaning that retail is not going to be able to push much volume in response to good news, so they need fresh blood. Preferably some major leaguers, such as the types that show up to conferences like today's.
Further, it has been horrible weather in the smallcap biotechs. The XBI was down about 8% today at one point. What a waste it would have been to have announced good news today. And that was true toward the end of last year. I don't remember what caused the cold environment at that point, but I remember that things were not great.
But Bonofiglio did say that they would announce the partner by the end of December. He said the partner was preventing them from announcing it any earlier. Maybe Wilson also said that as people claim. So either the partnership fell through, or simply got delayed (which happens all the time) or they are being smart and waiting for this slide in the small cap biotech sector to end before announcing. It would be spitting into the wind until the slide stops. The slide could stop tomorrow. Maybe another 1.5% slide for the XBI putting it at $55. Then sunshine...?
Glynn Wilson recently purchased 401,782 shares open market when the most recent share price was 60.5 Cents/sh .
According to the NASDAQ website listings for insider trades, this purchase was not an options execution as evidenced both by the purshase being described as "open market" and by the prior trade by a different party being described as an "options execution". That makes it super clear.
Note that Glynn nearly doubled the number of shares he holds when he recently performed this open market purchase.
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tpiv/insider-trades
Porgypig had some dry powder, apparently.
The depth of the hit is probably from loose association with GALE which announced relatively low pricing this morning for a dilution announced yesterday. Their SP took a huge hit both yesterday and moreso this morning.
Not sure why the dilution signals anything about GALE efficacy ... but TPIV's efficacy at 4X that of GALE's comparitive should make that pretty much moot. We also have plans for a blockade inhibitor adjunct that makes a GALE comparison weak.
Likely an irrational reflex to drag TPIV down. Such usually create a good entry point.
No. $heff's website says he is still holding his original stake in TPIV.
"TapImmune to Present at Biotech Showcase 2016 in San Francisco on January 11, 2016:" (10:00AM)
I know this is not news to most, but it is now PR'd. It will be Bonofiglio speaking, not Wilson. No mention of a webcast, yet they claim there will be an update. Likely a PR that Monday morning premarket or maybe as the presentation starts.
"The presentation will provide an update on clinical programs and pipeline development."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tapimmune-present-biotech-showcase-2016-141500083.html
Who is "Kunutson". I ask because I know of a former Biotech Pres named Jerry Knudson... thought one of us might be mispelling.
"Linda is a crook, but DCVax-L might still work."
You are pursuasive, however, I believe there are so few facts to work with that there is a pretty wide range of pictures that can be painted.
I am recently guessing that most of the funds to Cognate will have been loans. Loans for infastructure that will later be owned by Cognate. If all goes well, they will pay off the loans. If not... (then Cognate is not left holding any debt.? Not sure about this now that I think about it.)
But I don't see that arrangement as devious. It makes some sense. However, I would agree that if LP sees the odds of success as super low, then maybe such an arrangement is devious. Particularly if Cognate would end up with a manufacturing facility for peanuts as I think you suggested. But that view hinges on what LP's estimate of efficacy and subsequent regulatory approval are. My guess has been that she sees 4 to 6 months PFS. Some chance of not reaching 4 months, but not much chance. And she does have many subgroups defined to allow partial success.
The other key unknown, as far as I know, is the price that Cognate is going to charge for mfg. Given the lack of specifics in the PR's and SEC docs, are you sure that Cognate will be charging a very high price? I believe that question outweighs many of the others. Everyone is gambling on efficacy, but in the end, obviously, the cost of mfg is critical, with Provenge being the precedent. NWBO and Cognate have worked on reduction of cost according to LP, and there are an enormous number of patents accumulated, many of which likely apply to freezing and thawing DC's and other cost related details. But in the end, even if that is true and Cognate could produce the vaccine at low cost when volume is reached, will it? Of course everyone invested is totally vulnurable to the mfg cost goals not being reached and or Cognate gouging. Your pointing that out is very reasonable. But... that is not the same as having some evidence that either of those things is going to happen? Do you have some evidence... some reason to believe that Cognate's costs will be high or that they will gouge on pricing?
These infastructure expenses are not the same thing. Again; I don't think Cognate should bear the risk of spending hundreds of millions then having the trial fail. That should be NWBO's risk, as it appears to be. As long as the bulk of the money to Cognate is a loan with fair terms that must be paid back if DCVax-L gains marketing approval.
I don't know what they legally have to PR in terms of spending detail, and what they can stay quiet about. But if NWBO is lending Cognate the money for the expansion, so that NWBO has to carry all the risk, then they would probably prefer not to make that public. Certainly Woodford would have probed for that level of detail. Not sure he could legally get that info... but he must have had some explanation for what the amount of money was going to be spent on.
Such a lending arrangement would be consistent with the "win or go home" statement. I don't think such an arrangement would be unreasonable. Why should Cognate take the risk?
Rather, much or most of the money could be a loan to Cognate. The rest to Cognate could be for things like R&D / Design work, training, V&V, etc..
Re: Philip Powers' Obituary: Looks like LP had a sister that died of Leukemia in 1962. Her dad fought cancer multiple times.
As I vaguely recall, she also lost a stepson or step-daughter to cancer.
Of course Afford is right that none of that assures her altruism in dealing with NWBO...
My concern would be that even if she is pure as fresh snow, she has to live to fight another day against cancer, and Cognate appears to be the higher priority. From day 1, Cognate was less risky because it can work for multiple companies with multiple therapies.
If the future is autologous immunotherapy, then the threat to that future is the high cost of such therapy. The threat of companies failing on their own like Dendreon, but also the threat of people trying to stop such startups from making it, due to the financial threat to... insurance companies, governments, etc. By building and scaling Cognate she may be bringing the cost of autologous immunotherapy down to affordable levels, for anyone buying Cognate's services. That may be her priority, and that may be the only logical path.
None of that means that NWBO is not going to make it, it just suggests that if push comes to shove, Cognate lives.
Are you sure? Woodford should have a problem with huge $ going to a mfg build that Northwest does not own.
In my view, Northwest could pay Cognate outright for mfg design work, but that should buy Northwest the patents that result from that design work.
Northwest could also pay outright for oversight of any mfg build. But if they pay for the build itself, then they should own the equipment afterwards. The same would go for land and buildings, including improvements.
On the other hand, other than the design work, Northwest could lend large $ to Cognate to purchase land, buildings, improvments, and the mfg of equipment that Cognate designed, and Cognate would still own all those things. I hope that is what is going on. If not... then something is wrong, I would agree.
If Northwest is lending Cognate the money for the mfg rampup (other than the design work) then Northwest takes all the risk. That seems consistent with the relationship that exists, and it seems fair to me.
In the end, the science wins. Well, that is how it should be anyway.
Further.............
Thanks (to both of your). As soon as you said Buffalo, that rang a bell. But I have to admit I remembered it being Flutie at that point. I see Flutie did not join the Bills for another 5 years.
That was even more dramatic than I remember! Though 28-3 not 30-0 at the half.
It's a(n abbreviation for a course) slang term of military origin. You made me look it up. Turns out it doesn't mean what I thought it did.
"A group of soldiers in an unorganized formation."
Not sure when I started using the term wrong, but I haven't used it many times in my life.
I meant gngbng I guess, for lack of a better term.
"So he/she started receiving the treatment after the screening halt. Now we have evidence that enrollment continued after the screening halt for patients already in the pipeline. Great find TC."
Maybe it was just a coincidence that they halted with the number screened and randomized matching (maybe not exactly, but close) the numbers needed for statistical signicance for 4 months PFS and 6 months PFS respectively. Rather: the number screened may have been deliberate, while the number randomized at that same point may just have happened to match the number they would need in the trial if they were to use a 6 months PFS bar. Not sure they could go back to a 6 month PFS bar anyway...
My understanding is that the mystery of where the massive expenditures are going is solved with the assumption that it is going to a mfg build for large scale production.
For me that is an acceptible assumption as long as eyes and ears remain open for info and arguments to the contrary.
A further assumption that I have been comfortable making is that the reason for the scale-up now is either because there is some chance of an early approval, or they need to start now to have it fully funtional and approved by the time the FDA and EMA are considering approval. The demonstrated ability to mfg is a consideration for approval, and it may have been communicated to LP that it is a large consideration.
It could be a much longer effort to scale up mfg than myself and others have suggested in their posts. It could be a year long effort, an 18 month effort, or more. I don't know when they started spending the big $. Six months ago?
Gambling $100M+ with such an expansion makes sense to me. It increases the odds of approval and odds of early commercial success if approval is granted. (I also see now why Flipper was talking about the advantage in maintaining skilled staff etc at the clinics and mfg facility.) The whole trial was a huge gamble. This is no different in my view.
I remember when the stock went to $14+. I would look at the board once in a while. People were posting about which actors could play the different characters in the movie about NWBO.
Without knowing the details of what was going on, it did look like a stock bubble about to pop. "Sell high, by low" may apply better to people than stock prices... because there is a better reference point.
But all the longs contributed to that helium deep-breathing session. No one in particular. If someone was trying to calm you guys down back then, then they deserve some recognition. Unfortunately the people that bash continously aren't a good barometer because... they bash continously. Maybe I should have piped-in, but if I did, the stock would probably have tripled the next day.
The stock got overheated, then on the way down came some serious hammering with the phase V article, etc.. That forced Woodfords hand... and it all spiraled down.
Should Flipper have predicted the phase V article and Woodford's moves? I don't think so.
How about the $14+, was that Flipper's fault? I don't think so.
In fact; this is a very small biotech world. AVXL went through a very similar top and drop a couple of months ago. Nearly identical $. I was watching it closely at the time, and the largest part of the spike did not seem to come from purely natural greed forces. There was an over-the-top phony pump article published at exactly the right time to take the rising share price into a full spike. I do not believe that Anavex purchased that article. To the contrary, I believe that the article served the purpose of creating a perfect launch pad for subsequent shorting. You know the kind of shorting; an engineered gglfk. As the shorts made big $ on the way down, they pointed to the pump article as proof that Anavex was crooked... when in fact, I would bet you all the money you own against all the money I own, that the people that engineered the post-high glgfk were responsible for the pump article. We may know soon know what happened. Anavex has been subpoenaed by the SEC over the series of events.
That bash session started with Baby Face Shkreli, the booger eating leader of the pharma world, tweeting something damning about Anavex. The tweet was broadcast for some strange reason by Yahoo Finance. Then later AF (you know AF right?) piped in his bash, then later Carol from Fierce biotech, as I recall. The whole gang joined in. After all, it was a gglfk.