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.
eventhelosers you and I were BOTH in that company. The CEO repeatedly asked to be de-listed on the German exhange where there was massive naked shorting. The Germans refused. So he changed the company name by one letter (added or subtracted an "S" -- went from life sciences to life science, or vice versa). They got a new CUSIP number and bang zoom - suddenly the stock went up something like 25% as the naked shorting had to cover.
Then, the shorts attacked again as soon as the German exchange re-listed it under the new name.
Naked shorting DOES absolutely exist -- it just may not be in this country in large amounts.
Wish I could remember the name of the company -- it was about 6 or 7 years ago, I think.
Loanranger, I don't think the grounds are "clear" for disbarment but if some group of shareholders got angry enough to clamor for investigation, there certainly are grounds for an investigation.
They are not permitted to announce a lawsuit without having a client. I doubt that they had a client in the one hour that they had to prepare that press release before sending it off to the news disseminators.
They are trying to cover themselves by saying that they are "investigating." This is something that the SEC should forbid (what with dissemination of this kind of thing being interstate, and involving the stock market, I think the SEC could make a case for jurisdiction.) It's not a free speech issue any more than the other rules the SEC has for stock information that can or cannot be released on certain schedules.
So the question is, given the extremely short time between the SA article and the Rosen press release, did Rosen know in advance about the article? It was timed PERFECTLY to torpedo the stock as it was beginning to stabilize. Was the Rosen firm (or individuals in the firm, or a pardon-the-expression-picking-at-a-scab "shell"company) short this stock? That's something I would sure like to know.
The timing is too perfect for me to just assume it was a coincidence and a normal business practice.
"First thing I saw was the huge price fall , gave me a scare" and there you have it. People saw the scare headline, sold without reading the article, and that started the cascade.
Anyone who thinks that uplisting is the magic panacea -- do you think that individual investors would have reacted any differently if this were listed on the NASDAQ? Or the NYSE? The answer is no. I've seen times when VERY LARGE companies experienced similar swoons on news stories that turned out to be fake, or even just rumors.
Here's one, a fake buyout story that caused an 8% stock surge:
http://www.inquisitr.com/2251786/fake-twitter-buyout-story-shares-surge/
And that's just one of many such incidents.
The exchange you're listed on doesn't stop individuals from panicking when they think something like that headline (as schooner thought but fortunately was smart enough to check the article BEFORE selling) -- "oh there's a bad headline, there must be a big problem with the company, I'll sell now and read the article later." However the fact is that the panickers did the best (except of course for the cabal of shorters who had already sold short) -- because they got a chance to buy the stock back after they sold. So in this case, the fools were rewarded along with the crinimals.
As far as the company not responding to the Menon allegations: I hope that everyone saw the rebuttal in the (still posted despite complaints) Seeking Alpha article: it was based on a very old shoppers'-type newspaper article, retracted for inaccuracy, instead of the 2 more recent articles by the same publication that made NO mention of those allegations but instead were very positive to Dr. Menon. NONE of the personal attacks were addressed -- including the ("in my opinion") libelous attack that said words to the effect that "the insiders will likely pilfer the cash."
That last statement alone should tell an astute reader that the entire article must be garbage. I think the company was correct to avoid saying anything at all about any personal allegations. Responding would just have given cause for further discussion, giving that garbage credibility.
If I were Mr. Ehrlich, a man who lent 2 MILLION of his own money to keep the company afloat, I'd be mighty frosted about that comment. I applaud him for deciding to ignore it, and all the other garbage.
If you wonder what kind of people could do things like this attack against CTIX, knowing that they were not only stealing from many small investors, but potentially (and deliberately) hurting a company that might have cures for much human suffering, you'll find this interesting:
http://www.businessinsider.com/psychopath-vs-sociopath-2015-8?nr_email_referer=1&utm_content=BISelect&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_campaign=BI%20Select%20%28Wednesday%20Friday%29%202015-08-07&utm_term=Business%20Insider%20Select
You are wrong. There are many Alzheimer's patients who have done everything they could to live a healthy lifestyle. They get Alzheimer's too. This effort to blame the victims is yet another myth perpetrated by media -- the same ones that claim that doing crossword puzzles will prevent Alzheimer's, because they don't understand that correlation is not causation. Here's the way that scam works: people who don't have Alzheimer's are better able to do crossword puzzles than people who are beginning to exhibit symptoms (because Alzheimer's symptoms often start as much as 20 years before the diagnosis, but are typically very mild in the early stages). So, if people who can do crossword puzzles have a lesser incidence of Alzheimer's, by doing the puzzles you ought to be able to prevent the disease, right? No, that's backwards. You can do the puzzles because you DON'T have the disease.
Now, there is a correlation between diabetes and Alzheimer's. Many people who are dealing with or researching this disease refer to Alzheimer's as "Type 3 diabetes" because there is a strong correlation, statistically significant, between diabetes and cognitive dysfunction. But not all people who have diabetes get it because of lifestyle issues. A small minority do, but most people who get diabetes get it because they lost the genetic lottery, or they were exposed to a virus which either 1) causes diabetes or 2) does something to the immune system so that they get auto-immune diabetes. We don't know whether 1) or 2) is the reason, or if both are possible.
Please do not blame the victim. There has been NO provable correlation between lifestyle and Alzheimers. (I exclude people with alcoholic or traumatic brain injury dementia from this. This is another problem, people lump all dementias into "Alzheimer's" when in fact dementia is caused by many other things too.)
Weeks ago, huh? Odd that you were posting about your big position and "go CTIX" after that time that you say you sold. And that bull conversion was after many months of unrelenting bearishness from you.
Yeah, especially the ones who moved on to pumping another stock that many of us own. Let's see how long it takes for the traders' gangs to exit from that one, now that they ran it up big.
I agree, this reverse split crap has been part of their plan for many months. Why else do you think some people kept talking about a reverse split despite the CEO saying there would not be one? They wanted to keep people thinking about it, and demanding it. Notice who is posting now, and who is conspicuous by their absence?
Unfairly, almost all reverse splits end up tanking the stock because people see a reverse split as a sign of a company's weakness. So they short to get a reverse split to happen, and then they short it again.
Remember that it takes about an hour for a press release to wend its way through the system. So within an hour of the Seeking Alpha article, they supposedly acquired a client, wrote a press release, and then sent it off.
I call BS.
I've been thinking about what will happen when I make my vast fortune on CTIX and AVX*, what should I do with my new free time that would help make the world a better place?
But now I know. I will set up a foundation that can hire attorneys to sue people who pull these nefarious scams on the ignorant people that they scare out of their positions.
If the SEC won't do it, individuals will have to do it.
But they can't really sue people they're in cahoots with, can they?
"in my opinion" lol
I may call the Rosen firm on Monday. I would greatly enjoy telling them off.
It is illegal for a law firm to file a lawsuit without having an actual client. That's probably why they said they were "investigating" it.
These so-called shareholder lawsuits are legal extortion. It's often cheaper for a company to give the law firm 100k to go away than it is to hire a lawyer to fight it.
I hope that these jokers will actually file a lawsuit and that CTIX will countersue. Then we won't need any more Aspire funding because we would win.
I'd say damages of 60 million, payable from the law firm to CTIX, sounds about right.
Once again I point out the timing of the Rosen BS "lawsuit investigation."
The Seeking Alpha article was posted at 10:30. The Rosen "maybe I'm gonna file a lawsuit" press release came out at 12:41. It takes about an hour for a press release to make it through the system to the media outlets.
So we are to believe that the Rosen firm instantly saw the article upon its posting, was contacted by shareholders to file a suit, wrote a press release, and sent it off to the news organizations -- all this, in the space of about an hour.
Does anyone believe that this is possible? Do you think that a shareholder would read the article, do a Google search to find a law firm, and contact them in time for them to write up and send the press release in this timeframe? Or was the press release all ready to go when the article was posted?
Those who had the guts and wisdom to stay the course, and those who were able to buy more at these absurd prices, will be richly rewarded down the line.
I'm sorry for those who lets a bunch of lies scare them out of the stock.
I'm even sorrier that these truly evil people profited from their shorting and bashing of the company.
I'm sickened by those who would try to hurt this company for their short-term gain. Many of us know of good companies that have struggled or gone bankrupt because of these kinds of shenanigans. The truly horrible part is that there are probably drugs that could have alleviated human suffering -- but never made it to clinical trials, or else clinical trials were halted for financial reasons because of these evil people who attack companies.
Don't you think it's a tad strange that the article is STILL posted despite at least several of us writing them complaints and asking them to remove the article -- which Karin says she has seen happen in the past? Particularly when a point-by-point demonstration of the inaccuracy of the scientific claims was made by the company's CEO?
Even the garbage about the supposedly abandoned office of the "shell" company should have been sufficient to convince a reputable website to remove the article.
Okay, I guess it wasn't a joke.
These were terminally ill cancer patients. It would be unethical to do a safety trial for a drug that had never been used on humans and which presumably could harm them, on someone who had any chance of survival with conventional treatments. These were people who were doomed and were helping the world by volunteering to try this (and also, hoping against hope that it might help them).
Anyone who has even met a terminally ill cancer patient knows that their condition does not magically stabilize for months when they are in the final slide down.
That's a joke, right?
The blatant lying* in the hit piece is what is so appalling. Something written in that tone, with personal and "in my opinion" libelous personal attacks on people, posting pictures and addresses of people's private residences -- and then being obviously dead wrong on the science, and making flat statements that the drugs don't work and that the company is a "shell" -- these are things that never should have been allowed to be posted on a website that is "seeking credibility."
It does kind of make you go hmmm when you wonder why they posted it, doesn't it?
*truth is a defense in libel cases. I cannot imagine that someone could post the things that were written, sheerly from ignorance. One or two or a few statements, sure, but virtually everything?
Some people never give up.
Yes BioHedge, absolutely agree. I was only able to increase my position size by about 10% but I'm sure that in the future I'll be shaking my head in disbelief over what an incredible (and sickening) opportunity this was.
Remember you can PM for FREE here now until 5:00 eastern time.
There are a lot of us who might have some private info for other members, so take advantage of this time if so.
nice, but I think there is a misprint. Shouldn't is read "I will f^c^^^g K^&^ you"? LOL LOL LOL
Someone definitely upped their game on this. Last time it was complaining about the office furniture, this time it's the whole office! LOL
No response from SA to my lengthy letter to them.
And I was even polite and calm and rational and everything. Even though I wanted to grab them by the collar and scream in their faces.
There's lots of stuff he did not respond to, as being beneath notice -- for instance, the jerk's claim that he would "be pilfering the cash" from the company. I think he was absolutely correct in not addressing the real personally attacking BS and sticking to the attack on whether the offices were real (sigh) and the science.
OMG bramkers LOL (eom)
I know it's stupid, but I have that feeling of a little victory when I come to the board and it says "last post 1 second ago" LOL
I'm gone for the afternoon. Leaving some lowball buy orders in. Don't know if I want them to fill or not -- would like the shares, don't want the price to go down that low. LOL
Yeah, I guess 246 million is a real high market cap for a company with 4 major clinical trials going one, all of which have blockbuster potential.
NOT.
Sorry if the mere facts interfere with your beliefs.
Current market cap is about 246 million. An entirely new class of antibiotics, a possible treatment for oral mucositis, a possible treatment or cure for some forms of cancer, and a possible treatment or cure for psoriasis.
Let's see how that compares with Wall Street's recent darling AXO* which has one failed drug for Alzheimer's that they say they are going to take to clinical trials someday. Its market cap is 1.11 Billion, down from over 2 billion on IPO day a couple months ago.
See anything interesting about that comparison?
Which one do you think is a better investment? A company with 3 drugs in clinical trials for 4 different indications, or a company that just started, with vague plans for future human trials, maybe? Which one has a market cap 4 times higher than the other?
By the way I also filed a complaint about the article with SeekingAlpha. noretreat put a link in how to do it in the stickies above.
Note: the "Report problem with post" button is below the ARTICLE, not below the COMMENTS.
govorchin may well be correct in hypothesizing that Mr. Ehrlich went to Dana Farber and told them that he just HAD to release a few small nuggets of information right now.
EDIT: I was referring to her earlier post, not the one that's about 4 or 5 posts behind this.
I just called the CTIX offices. You definitely CAN leave a voice mail.
Not sure that grape juice with 2 shots of vodka is classified as "wine." I could be wrong.
lol
Maybe he bought his share back.
Here is exactly what you wrote:
You asked for huge amounts of new data, as I said in my previous posts. I quoted your exact calls for the specific data you wanted, and your claim that the reason he didn't give the data was that it was "not so good" -- a statement for which you have no basis in fact.
You were calling for a huge data dump. There's a big difference between the massive new data you were calling for IN ADDITION TO what was in today's missive, and the small (but valuable to those of us who know the company well) nuggets.
That is very clear to all of us.
You also stated that you think the data was "not so good." On what do you base that opinion? Please tell us your inside scientific information that none of the rest of us have.
Your statement also shows what you really think of this stock.
He gave very little new information. You were asking for a lot of new information to be given out.
There is a difference. Keep trying to twist my words, I will keep refuting you.
Here's what YOU were asking for:
That's a good one. Or, maybe they'd like to buy the company cheap so they can have ALL the good antibiotics....