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.
I say again, AMBS did not do some ground breaking work on a new test, it picked new stats that better suit the new plan for the company. That is perfectly OK, but it also points a glaring spotlight on the limits of the test.
As you can see from the numbers the sen and spec remain in the same range as all previous studies. That means that further improvement is not very likely. EVEN though the number of people who got the lympro test remains WOEFULLY small.
by the way, I only convince someone every once in awhile. It is a rare event. Needless to say, that does not matter to me. Stats are stats, and the last post outlines the details as they pertain to Lympro.
you get to pick the sen for a specific spec. No one would pick a spec of 78% unless they were going for ONLY a high Sen. That is what they did.
IOW, the ROC curve for Lympro was something like ( estimating )
Sen Spec
90 78
88 80
85 83
80 88
Undoubtedly, you could have picked a Spec that was higher than the sen, but that does you no good. Net, you wind up with a test that is ONLY of SOME use, in research. However, it is not proved that it will cost effectively add any information. We will see about that.
I provided you the means to learn about this, so just go do it.
and well, all of that said, that does not mean that AMBS should be sold. It is a buy in this range, for other reasons.
Did you at least listen to Kirby? in that video. If you do, it will all become clear.
http://www.c4ctsummit.com/c4ct-summit-july-2014/
Ok, I even took the time to find the C4ct summit of non important people, who are mostly paid by AMBS.
In this summit on concussion, you will find a lecture on AD, which does not belong there, by Dr. Kirby where he talks about how you get to pick your sen and spec.
Now, the lecture by Dr A on p16 is extremely interesting. You really should watch that part.
http://static.squarespace.com/static/535febe7e4b081613fd42bc7/t/53e2a621e4b0b045b3f0043d/1407362593916/%23+C4CT+Conference+Working+Agenda+FINAL.pdf
That is the agenda, so you can page through the video accordingly.
I DO like the lecture by the woman who PLEADS with the community for BIG SCIENCE. She was hollering at AMBS in saying that.
http://www.lexjansen.com/nesug/nesug10/hl/hl07.pdf
Look at the graph on page 8 of this pdf. Here you see how you can pick your sen for a particular spec. Note that the bottom of the graph is 1-spec. ( not spec )
The same graph, with different results exists for the lympro test presented at the UN along with a verbal from Dr. Kirby.
The BD people did not rejigger the test to get a better sen, they rejiggered the stats. IF you look at a high spec for Lympro you get a middling sen. It is always going to be that way. Its always been that way.
This is another reference.
http://www.medcalc.org/manual/roc-curves.php
They select the sen for the particular spec. That is how they got 90%. Look up any stats book or Dr. Kirby's lecture at the AMBS conference held at the UN.
That is my last comment on this matter. I have already repeated myself several times. lower the spec and you get a higher sen. That is not bad in and of itself, it means that the test will NEVER be used in the general population, as we already knew, but that it will be used in research to some degree, maybe.
Don't agree with me, look up the Dr. Kirby video where they showed he numbers and the graphs.
Seriously.
This was the Denmark poster, which has nothing to do with the sen reported on the new data at a later date. Denmark reported no new data.
yep, you did manage to copy from this poster. good job.
wrong
You adjust the sen by picking a lower spec.
Very simple.
go back to Dr. Kirby's lecture at the conference held at the rented UN and you may begin to understand that concept.
I know that I am not losing anything actually. I've gained at least one convert in the recent weeks.
And overall, I am behind AMBS products at .075.
If you think they are facts, that is fine with me. I know the facts. I don't always argue.
Those particular set of facts were more interesting than others.
wonderful, thanks so much.
AMBS wants Lympro to be used in research studies. Serum P tau has more than a Two year head start on Lympro. The linked study started in August of 2012.
The link posted today, that was actually posted some weeks ago, notes that availability will now be expanded.
You can't fudge this, serum P tau is years ahead of Lympro.
institutions know when to buy, and it is NEVER on the day of the ODD designation, retail buys then.
The pps has based but STILL cannot get out of its own way.
Keep in mind that since it based it is a buy from .075 or so. That is when I posted, at .075, as a TRADE.
The pps is .082, there was certainly a pop after the ODD announcement. For nascent biotech, they almost always gap up, if they otherwise have their act together.
I am off, you can talk amongst yourselves.
AMBS needs cash. Essentially, it is immaterial where they get it from, given that they need a LOT of cash, and so it will be seriously dilutive. When was the last time a company got an ODD without a pop in the pps?
I would have to do some research, but I am sure that is very unusual, and possibly unprecedented. That must be due to the dilution.
you may want to reread that post with the link from the September 2014. It is a little late. And all along they have denied that any test is in front of them, but well, thanks for being consistent.
note that official study began in 2012. serum p tau is not new. I do not know if AMBS is just ignorant or worse regarding this issue. Regardless, their claim to be the first blood test is a material misstatement of the facts.
Note the date of this release is in September. Again, this test is being used in at least one study that you can find on clinicaltrials.gov. Those studies are almost always published.
I am not sure why this became an issue today.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01928420?term=alzheimer%27s&recr=Recruiting&rank=1
I posted this ongoing study in the past. It is not noted in wikipedia. Going to wikipedia is often like using the World Book Encyclopedia as a source.
There are many more studies on serum p tau. You may want to START with the feature presentation at the Denmark AD conference.
ambs is a buy, but not for lympro, which generated a series of lies by the company.
I've written about it before. THIS test was FEATURED at the Denmark conference, while Lympro was given a poster as a non notable please pay me and you can get in to my conference, really bad poster session.
AND serum p tau IS being used in actual PATIENTS in REAL studies. ALREADY. AND spinal fluid p tau is one of the ESTABLISHED biomarkers for the diagnosis of AD. Its been that way for some time now.
Serum p tau is in real studies, not just paid by the company studies that may get you some bump in the pps kind of thing.
OH.
In other words, if you had read my posts, this would not be news.
There are two types of predictions on this board. One says that the pps will always go up, and the other says that it will go up and down. Which one is correct?
Hint, look at the chart. Within a reasonable range, those who say that the pps will go up and down in HUGE percentages are entirely correct, 100% of the time.
being off by a penny or two is not actually material.
That said, this level is a reasonable buying opportunity, although there is some downside risk.
Also, this year, there is a chance that the pps will make higher lows, and higher highs again, which is good.
GC, the CEO, admitted that in a session this year. The words came out of GC's mouth. I believe that the session was held in the late summer.
You can email GC and he will confirm that he said that.
clinicaltrial.gov, do your own search.
And I talked about AD test trials not AD treatment trials, but they are the same. The final ( not initial ) tests always involve large groups not terribly small science of 72 people with disease. ( Multiply 72 times two and you get the total size of the current study, the other half are normal controls. )
That is so ludicrously low that it should be ignored.
Also, I expect similar numbers to those studies in the past.
Note also that you can pick a higher sen by decreasing the spec if you want to JUST find people with the disease and do not care about missing people who are false positive. ( See Dr. Kirby's lecture on the Lympro results in the summer )
That is fine if you are looking to include people with disease in a study. That also means that the only purpose for the test is to find people for studies.
It cannot follow people in studies.
ONE poster on here recently realized what I have been saying for a long time.
Based on my growing experience, on posting, I find that there are many who read and do not post. So, hopefully, that number is larger than one.
Note also, that I recommended AMBS at .075.
Criticism, while extremely harsh is often a response to the recent posts.
Note in my sticky, I predicted that eye disorders would be the first indication for MANF. That stickie is net positive, and only leaves out ESS which the company had not acquried yet. There is nothing to say about ESS, except that it is a real product waiting for final testing. That will take a lot of money and so we will see how much of the company is given away in that effort.
Lympro will never bring much in revenue. There is next to no reason to get the test, especially at $1000. ( no one has quoted $2500, and if you go back to the early lectures on Lympro, you know that the test costs the company $30. )
Finally, the windfall agreement with ICON COST the company money ($150000) after years of predicting windfalls from Lympro you got that.
Net the constant PRs which in many cases have been just totally wrong, HAVE increased the market cap of the company, from 3 million to 70 million. That is a huge move. Too bad the pps did not go along for that ride.
A market cap of 1.6 billion will have to ensure WITHOUT any further dilution for the shareholders to participate in that windfall.
You would think that this company is being run by the Navy. Their motto "Dilution is the solution" as they toss this and that into the ocean.
Every once in awhile I repeat myself. NO trial that is recruiting will stop and change their entry criteria. You want to get trials that have not gone to the FDA and the respective Institutional review boards yet.
As you know from reading about trials for actual AD tests, they rely on 1000s of people in their studies, not 142 half of whom have AD.
While a test with reasonable sen has some utility in finding AD patients, you can do that by other means for much less. If your hypothesis is that amyloid halted EARLY in the disease is the problem to fix then you do a scan that can actually see if the amyloid gets better or worse, early on, and throughout the disease.
It will take a lot of study to see if Lympro is any better than the say an exam excluding other types of dementia and a MMSE of 21 at finding AD. everyone gets an exam and a MMSE.
It is totally hilarious how the plans AMBS has for Lympro keep changing. More insight can be had by looking at my stickie on this matter.
A remarkable thing happened on the way to the forum, the market cap of this company went from almost nothing to over 70 million.That isn't nothing, that is a lot.
An ODD designation DOES increase the fundamentals of any company.Interesting how AMBS got themselves into this situation.
OTCMKTS:AMBS
Put that in to Google finance
It is nice to see that others have figured out the routine.
the old one is not there, the new one is there.
I've always been behind MANF. The company is finally getting MANF off the ground. If it had been organized, and credible, this would have happened several years ago. Even with that, they add in a preposterous statement that MANF will be used for Glaucoma. ah, no, not in any size, and probably not at all, since there are lots of treatments for Glaucoma.
The mendacity of this company is deep rooted. It will continue to bedevil the company until those who just must confabulate are removed. Your comment reminds me of the FIRST day in Copenhagen. The company released a "Positive" study that had nothing to do with being positive or negative and the pps skyrocketed. Discerning stock holders make so much money off this company because they know when the company is lying.
MANF has potential, ESS when they close on it, is a real product, and P16 bears investigating.
The others are crap more than likely, although Eltoprazine bears investigating. Lympro is a ruse to keep up the share price. It actually did work, now the pps will trade on the MANF/ESS news for some time.
oh brother. and how often is glaucoma not controlled with current therapies? not very often.
It will not be approved or disapproved until they get to a Phase III study and pass and then wait a year for approval.
It did get its orphan drug designation. That is the first step.
The price action is OK, given the beating that biotech is taking.
He can now say that he " made " his milestone. sort of.
Another "puff" press release that doesn't say anything. Nothing has changed:
They are essentially saying that the new data will be consistent with the previous data, which makes sense.
It goes on to say that the company will market the product at trade shows. What it does not say is that the company is seeing HUGE demand for the product. For once they are telling the truth about a milestone.
Not much demand out there, will move forward.
The note that they are going to use substantially less than 200 people for the Eltoprazine trial is bad science, which is par for the course.
TWO concurrent full phase III randomized trials are expensive, and over the cash flow of AMBS by orders of magnitude. That would lead to further loss of shareholder value, with little hope of gain, imo. We will see if the Phase IIb is good science and if it is positive.
What box is that?
good luck with that. This is complicated and most of your assertions are not supported.