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.
Just think if we get some news. But it looks like somebody already knows something.
im a small investor and just bought 600000 shares at .0007 and dont know a whole lot about this stock. I am wanting to know if this was a good entry point and what did everyone else get in at.
What happen is everyone that just got in got screwed again
Reverse split coming
Im new with only 1000000 shares at .0001 but i want to know what 242 bms mean.
thanks
10000000 before bell?
my scottrade now has bid .0001 ask .0002
my scottrade says bid .0001 ask .0004 does this mean anything?
If the FDA cant hold the stock down then a loan cant either!
would be so nice to see PR this afternoon and open back up at 1 cent.
i think we will survive.
I was gonna sell at 62 to 65 but i think i will hold before i give them this cheap.
I think a merger or buyout was already in the works. I think we will get a PR before the open saying they have merged or being bought out. I believe thecompany was waiting on the results before they took a deal with another company. Just my thoughts i dont have a crystal ball like Holder.
Gonna let my few shares sit and hope for a buyout. Thats all we can hope for because they are broke.
Hate to say it but i think we will dip more before the day ends. Hope notbut i gota bad feeling.
i feel a sinking feeling coming!
You maybe on to something. It said it would be archivied for 30 days but its gone 2 weeks early. Very strange
Interesting read and FDA SUCKS!!
Hi, this article from the WSJ is about Cancer but want to show mainly the imcompetence, PUPPETRY, demoralized power that were so familiar with already.And to compare it with eventually SCI treatment will be up against. Its F'ing sickening.
Last year in a three-judge panel decided that the FDA is violating the due process rights of terminally ill patients by denying them access to promising investigational drugs. In response, the FDA moved for a rehearing by the full-court, hoping to prevent a lower court supervised examination of whether it's draconian policies actually serve a narrowly tailored compelling governmental interest. In layman's terms this means the FDA would have to show its policies toward terminal ill patients are so critical to the well-being of society that they super-sede (in broad and highly imperfect fashion) the fundamental right of an individual to pursue life free of undue government interference. The FDA knows their policies will not survive this test and doesn't want the question asked.
Consider the FDA's handling of Genasense, new drug for melanoma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), 2 often terminal forms of cancer. The drug is being developed by Genta, a small, innovative company with only one approved drug and limited financial resources. Despite compelling evidence that Genasense is making progress in fighting both diseases, the FDA appears determined to kill the drug.
In the case of the melanoma application, instead of reviewing the clinical trial data in accordance with usual methods (which showed positive results), the FDA chose a nonstandard statistical approach aimed at discrediting the results. The agency uses an analysis and its briefing to its advisory committee, claiming that the drug might not be effective. The committee then relied on the information to vote against approval.
Now, Genta has found a serious mathematical error in the FDA's analysis, renderinging its results meaningless. Genta is filing a complaint under the Federal Data Quality Act to correct the record. But in the meantime, the drug remains unapproved and melanoma patients continue to wait.
Genasense was also shown in a well-run, randomized clinical trial, (the FDA's gold standard) to cause a complete disappearance of disease in 17 percent of patients with advanced CLL when combined with two older drugs. Just 7 percent of patients in a control group who received only the older drugs experienced similar benefit. The responders to Genasense have seen a relief last an average of 36 months, while those using other drugs saw their cancer return, on average in 22 months.
Following is results, the Director of the FDA's cancer division, Dr. Richard Pazdur, began convened its the public meeting of his advisory committee. After agency presentation designed to elicit a negative outcome, the panel voted 7 to 3 against approval, sharing an immediate reaction of surprising dismay among many CLL experts.
But the committee vote is less surprising if one knows that the FDA appointed several voting consultants to the committee (none of them CLL experts), and recused from the meeting the only sitting member of the committee who is an expert in CLL. Perhaps even more troubling, two of the voting committee members worked behind the scenes as undisclosed consultants for the FDA on Genasense, then without disclosure voted in the open meeting.
A shocked Genta quickly requested a meeting with the FDA to seek clarity on the agency's position, and to present additional information from patient follow-up. On the referral of an eminent leukemia expert, Genta asked if we would attend the meeting as witnesses in our capacity is patient advocates. No compensation was offered, requested or received. Most of the meeting was consumed by getting the FDA to it that the obvious: the long-lasting, complete disappearance of CLL and its symptoms constituted “clinical benefit’ making these arguments were two cancer medicine professors at M.D.Anderson Cancer Center, the recused ODAC member and immediate past president of the American society of hematology of a -- all experts in CLL. None were employees of Genta and collectively represented a far more qualified advisory committee then the one the FDA had convened
The FDA's insane answer to the CLL experts was that the long-lasting disappearance of disease in patients taking Genasense was a “ theoretical construct” and not grounds for approval. The experts explained to the FDA that complete response in advanced CLL patients are the medical equivalent of the holy grail. The FDA finally agreed, but was unimpressed with the emerging data showing responders to Genasense living longer than responders in the control group.
The experts were unanimous in advising that Genasense should be approved, but the FDA was unmoved. The agency's Dr. Pazdur suggested that Genta could make the drug available as an unapproved treatment through an expanded access program -- this from a regulator fond of stating that the best way to get a drug to patients in need is through approval!!!! In this case the agency was saying to Genta: we are not going to approve your drug, but any patient he needs it can have it so long as you give away. Genta responded that nonapproval would be a denial of patient access to Genasense because they cannot afford to give away in an expanded access program. Twice, Dr.Pazdur referred to that logic as a “business decision”
Less than 48 hours later, the FDA rejected Genasense. Within days Genta made a “business decision,” laying off a third of its staff in a cost-cutting move aimed at keeping the doors open long enough to appeal the FDA's decision. The appeal was filed in early April. Genta's announcement of the filing included a statement from one of the expert physicians: “it is puzzling that they would deny approval to a drug that met its primary and key secondary endpoint, especially sense these findings were observed in the only randomized controlled trial that has ever been conducted in patients with relapsed CLL.
The FDA's handling of Genasense lays bare the all too common, aggressive incompetence of the FDA's cancer drug division and should lead to an immediate examination of its policies and leadership, followed by Swift aggressive action. As for the FDA's belief that their power to control us and even denies the pursuit of life itself is unlimited under the Constitution, we can only hope the appeals court disagrees. An agency that blocks progress against deadly diseases -- while arguing that its power to do so is above challenge -- is in dire need of the court supervised review.
I believe that theyre next step was to take it overseas to Europe
alas where T-R is testing also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will start the bids at a buck to start with!! Yea guys just wishful thinking but we live in a crazy a ss world you never know.
When the website opens back up it will say FDA APPROVED!!!
Would be nice to get a jump like siri did this morning.