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 mostly agree with you. I don't agree on this. I think DCVax-L at 250,000 and even higher, is competitive with the early approvals of drugs like Keytruda that while generally very useful, had terrible side-effects and were for many, many more patients.
It's not that I want them to charge more than they should, but my research says 250,000 actually makes DCVax-L, per patient, given few side-effects, dispensable in a community setting and a longer term treatment that extends life, more affordable, overall, than drugs costing the same or more. So I think people puzzling over the pricing at this stage and the cost and how it's got to be so much less, are really just anticipating things that are not yet issues for approval and really inventing issues to explain away shadows that are invented for lack of other things to talk about.
And yeah, shorts exploit all of the fear mongering. But DCVax-L, even at that price, once covered, is very reasonable overall. And in the longer run, the company will likely figure out better ways to finance it for patients and distribute the cost over time, without trying to become a cancer charity. They actually do have to cover the costs of development to this point and further development. Things don't end on approval of DCVax-L for glioblastoma. All of that comes with more sophisticated operations and financial capabilities and with resources behind them. I do hope that they are planning and have more of a plan than they have revealed so far, though I do also recognize that large drug companies want something like mRNA vaccines rather than cellular treatments because they have never, ever liked the idea of cellular treatments. So they are, it appears, going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this era of cellular vaccines and treatments. They could have been far more helpful, and really, I suspect that to some large degree, they have enjoyed the tribulations and difficulties and hope to exploit them. But I hope the company has made some progress on that front.
It’s not the company. Cookie ideas aside, of which you are full, swing trading is a common activity of investors on the OTC.
It feels like it's not just shorties talking this down, if you know what I mean.
When Keytruda came out...
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/updated-merck-s-melanoma-game-changer-keytruda-likely-to-bolster-drug-pricing-debate
$150,000 per year, and typically patients took it for up to 2 years.
2014 prices.
Obviously insurance covers a large part of it.
Optune is 21,000 per month, indefinitely, and where it is covered, insurance covers some large portion of that. That is $252,000 per year.
In my opinion, DCVax-L, even priced as is, or more, is not only better, but comes out way cheaper per month, likely. Especially if they charge some decent portion of it over time.
And Car-T is way more all in, including side-effects, hospital care and all of the ancillary costs that don't get included by some.
True, the Iron Mountain "safe storage" facilities where absolutely EVERYONE stores their documents, keep catching fire, in many places around the world. You'd think they'd be able to put in sprinklers and keep the fires from happening, especially when they are storing paper.
Papers are very flammable.
https://www.google.com/search?q=iron+mountain+fire&oq=iron+mountain+fire
I posted that Car-T was not approved long ago. But the reasons are clear. It was costing $1 million to treat patients and the side effects were awful, which was a huge reason for the cost. Plus it’s NOT a cure for many patients. So yeah, it is limited to patients that need it. It’s not a general treatment. It costs immense sums to treat people with car-t, it can’t be given in a community setting, side effects can kill people, and when patients have those side-effects it mushrooms the cost and there is no certainty that it will work long-term.
UCLA clearly has stated publicly in PR documentation that that trial IS DCVax-L. ExW just likes to manufacture complexity. This has been clearly posted previously.
You’re a lawyer now? Don’t worry, she was a former senior regulator for the state of NJ and heads up a NYS Bar Committee. She has massive judgments under her belt. I am pretty sure she can handle it…
What was the last case you litigated for massive judgments?
You should really take your own advice.
Now of that was the topic with them Gary, but I get your point.
I did not say you don’t calculate the warrants not all converted. That’s not all authorized shares. Trying to save a stupid argument, but it’s still a ridiculous argument.
As I said, the point made was like claiming the remaining checks in a checkbook are dollars. They’re not until they are issued and you need dollars to issue them.
Authorized shares are NOT issued shares. Simple, obvious, undeniable MATH.
Here are a whole slew of distinguished institutions, regulatory and government agencies recognizing DCVax-L, contradicting your "opinion".
This seems like quite a distinguished group of institutions associated with the treatment and trial, not "shunning" it:
The rats, and flies are running amuck today. But the reality is, it won’t affect anything REAL in the long run. For them, it’s a losing battle and their desperate posts are a sign of the fact that they are losers and posting misinformation is ALL they’ve got going for themselves.
None of this addresses my point. You distract by pointing to other things to hide your group incompetence. Of course the 10K should be looked to for ISSUED shares and of course issued shares include preferred. Nothing I said was about that…
You don’t use AUTHORIZED shares. That is like counting your money in the bank by counting how many unwritten checks you still have in your checkbook.
You guys are like flies buzzing around this bulletin board pointing distracting misinformation and noise saying, “Look at me!” “Look at me!”
The problem is, you will post all the misinformation nonstop whether anyone points out it is wrong or not.
You have no idea what you are talking about and all you can do is do ad hominem attacks because you were wrong and cannot argue your actual point. You’re ridiculous.
These are basic, basic calculations, and you intentionally chose to deceive.
As for my other calculations, I explained they were crude, and I went through great effort to reduce and reduce and reduce again the estimate to make it as reasonable as possible.
You are clearly here to deceive investors and either have no idea what you are talking about, or you intentionally used the wrong count of shares to deceive people. Personally, I vote for the latter, I think you knew exactly that what you were saying was incorrect and chose to say it that way for effect. But that’s just my opinion.
It’s never “fully authorized”, those are not all shares and all companies have authorized but unissued shares. That is not how you calculate market cap and I am sure you know that. Market cap is ISSUED shares. Unissued do not exist until they are issued. When you buy a company, you do not pay for UNISSUED shares. So using authorized shares to make such a point is another indication of deceit of retail.
If anyone ever figures out that you have a license and you post this bogus crap, the obvious intent will be clear and you can forget it. Might want to try a new occupation.
Agreed. I have speculated for years that BP may have legal ways to effectively compensate firms that, suppress the prices of these companies, using total return swaps or something similar, where everyone can plausibly deny they are doing what they are doing… and the firms get some spread.
You say the same ridiculous things, over and over again because you have nothing to offer intellectually or otherwise. You post like a child.
They didn't really hide it. Just have to look for it. It was/is a trial, not one drug or even a new drug necessarily.
The posts are off-topic.
So now the out of fake stories that have not been whipped to death, stories 20 years old even, shorts are claiming academic fraud at Kings College Hospital, Cambridge…
I would hate to be anyone the target of a very serious suit for defamation.
Here is a bit of a teaser:
Under UK law, the risks of recklessly libeling or slandering eminent doctors—or any individual—can be significant, both legally and financially. Here’s an outline of the key points:
1. **Definition of Libel and Slander**: Libel refers to defamation in permanent form, such as written or published statements, whereas slander refers to defamation in transient form, like spoken words or gestures. In the UK, defamation laws cover both libel and slander, protecting individuals' reputations from unjustified harm.
2. **Legal Consequences**: The UK's defamation laws are known to be strict. If someone is found to have libeled or slandered another person, the court may order the defendant to:
- Pay damages to the plaintiff for harm to their reputation.
- Issue a retraction or apology.
- Pay legal costs, which can be substantial in defamation cases.
3. **Serious Harm Requirement**: The Defamation Act 2013 introduced a "serious harm" threshold for defamation cases in England and Wales, meaning that it must be shown that the defamatory statement caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the plaintiff's reputation. For eminent doctors, this could include harm to their professional reputation, which may be easier to demonstrate due to their public standing and reliance on professional credibility.
4. **Financial Risks**: Damages awarded in defamation cases can be high, especially if the claimant's professional reputation has been significantly damaged, leading to loss of income or standing within their profession. Legal costs can also be substantial, and even if the defendant wins, they may not recover all their legal expenses.
5. **Reputation Damage**: Beyond legal consequences, individuals who recklessly libel or slander others may suffer from reputational damage, affecting their personal and professional relationships.
Given the serious risks and complexities involved in defamation cases, it's advisable to exercise caution and seek legal advice before making or publishing potentially defamatory statements about anyone, including eminent doctors.
So do you think regulators care about people questioning your motivations and behavior on a global stockholder bulletin board for a treatment you never received? I suspect you may have a special file into which your communications are placed.
I think so. Plus baseless opinion posted by a person claiming to be a patient but he actually wasn’t… a visitor would need to spend time to figure that out. Even people who are here all the time have been confused. Disruptive for attention. Disruptive for profit. Hard to say.
I think you have nothing to offer us but the desire to be the center of attention.
Could be. Very strange, but ultimately not relevant at all to this board. Though not wanting to be unkind. But I believe that this is someone who wants attention, who wants to be the center of attention, and will do and say anything to get it. Could be he has some brain injury that has caused this behavior. Hard to know.
Sounds like he had some infection, possibly some other tumor type maybe, but he never actually had GBM. He never got more than a few weeks of “treatment” and he claims he ended it, not that hypochondria was exposed, perhaps.
I think perhaps some people come here for attention. Are you lonely?
No, he said on one of his first posts, he never received DCVax-L, he is just here to be the center of attention and to confuse people.
This has absolutely nothing to do with DCVax-L or the trial. You’re just some strange person seeking fame or seeking to disrupt discussion so that we can discuss you. Same thing. Not sure you’re fully cured, in either case because of what sounds like hypochondria. You had cancer. You stopped all treatment after 6 weeks, you had a scan years later, telling a doctor you had GBM, but he says you didn’t but then you accuse Kings College of “scamming you”… and none of it has anything to do with DCVax-L or NWBO. Yet here you are, trying to be the center of attention here and you claim, with MHRA.
He did not even get into the trial. The first post was a confused complaint about his not getting into the trial despite his “favorable” diagnosis. He’s a confused, nonsensical poster but I agree that he comes off as someone with a crazy story trying to either gain fake fame, someone perhaps with issues, OR hired by someone to create false impressions here.
It is doubtful that any regulator would be “interviewing” him about any clinical trial.
I have posted extensively on the expedited process created in the UK these last years since COVID. I am fairly sure this is the case.
Simultaneous processing is one of the benefits of the expedited process in the UK. Your notion that they are “behind” is actually nonsense. And yes, NICE noted about 6 months ago or so that they were restarting their review.
As for what was discussed, NICE is all about access and pricing. Yes, it is scheduling and process, but it’s all about pricing and providing the drug to patients. Your suggestion that it isn’t is a nice way to further pretend this is going slow, but that is just not the case.
Your tumor type was not appropriate for the trial. Your desire to ruin access for other patients is bizarre and immature. I can’t imagine it would be considered in any context as reflective of anything about the company or DCVax-L.
5 months of direct testimony. You must’ve been in their offices every day.
He’s making bizarre claims and trying to undermine the treatment that was not appropriate for his form of brain tumor, for other patients. A kind of bitter response that it is impossible in any context see as a mature or positive kind of behavior.
You subsequently clarified you did not have GBM, and were diagnosed with Astrocynoma Wild Type brain tumor.
What grade was the tumor?
You definitely would not likely be considered at all for a Glioblastoma trial, though I would guess it would be a disappointment. Doctors screening you were not “the Company”. That would be that hospital and doctor, following the basic requirements of the trial.
It actually speaks well of the trial that you were not included in that trial, rather than the opposite, even if you’d perhaps have wished otherwise. Further, your resentment is proof of their care despite the fact that you resent them for it and made a point of trying to undermine the treatment and company for other patients… assuming your story is true.
It doesn’t affect the chief compliance guys. In fact, they fail upward. Unfortunately.
But he will get to fire all the “bad apples” with a totally serious face, before he gets fired and fails upward into a bigger and better job.
He’ll tell the board, they will have to investigate the primary person, and if they are smart, given his social media activity, they will fire him… to preserve the organization, and everyone will go down together…. Except a few of them will definitely fail upward… there are always key people who fail upward.
Let me put it more clearly for you. If I tell my programmer to create an algorithmic system that “gets the best price” for my customers, and he does the math and inadvertently realizes that trading activity that a judge would dub intentional spoofing, is the best way, but the programmer doesn’t know it’s illegal, and the buyer of the software “ claims he know” it was spoofing, but that is, in fact, what it did, the intent IS there, regardless of what everyone claims they knew, claims they did not know, wished they knew, etc. the intent is not what you think it is, and plausible deniability is not going to likely suffice.
Not if it is algorithmically created, you don’t understand the nature of institutions, or the concept of intent. Intent to do the act, or facilitate customer trading using a tool that someone put into commerce without properly determining if it violated the law or not. Intent is “diffuse” in this context, and not what you think it is….
You don’t have to have what some people think, in order to get to the relevant “intent”… and the problem with a matured on bulletin boards or at investment managers is that they think they can hide behind tools, tools they may very well know are not kosher but that they can plausibly deny they knew were spoofing. But spoofing is a clear cut activity. All you need to prove is that there was actual spoofing, it doesn’t require the level of knowledge you think. It is just that the right cases have not yet been litigated. I suspect this is going to be the right case.
The reality is that people writing these things think that our laws clearly give them some sort of all clear sign to break the law, but we have a case law system where new technologies and ideas reveal themselves only gradually, and as the system becomes more aware of the nature of systems, they will apply the relevant rules. But the people who are doing these things, they think last year’s very poor case dictates how a court will perceive their activity. That is not true at all.
Agreed. If shorts do not think there won’t be screams for blood in the streets and their actual scalps, they have not been paying attention. This is broad based. There will be demands for criminal prosecution. There will be demands for more restrictive regulation of short trading and especially by hedge funds in small markets where they have outsized impact and can control a market price and undermine fair market mechanisms.
I have no doubt about it because I know people who will likely be working on that with all the usual characters in Congress to get those bills through. And if they do not believe that with the various states now smashing the gerrymandering in states like WI, Dems won’t take control of both houses, with abortion rights on the ticket in this election, then they are seriously out to lunch.
Better settle this thing quickly, because all of the tea is going to be spilt. There will be nowhere to hide. No anonymity. For short traders, I guarantee that will come to an end, and it will be because of market manipulation and licenses, so free speech will no longer be relevant, you just won’t have licenses to trade anymore. Post all you want, as a professional barred from the securities markets and only able to trade personally, as just another retail schlub. Sure, you’ll have more dollars, but less access and you’ll be completely visible to every regulator.
Whatever you may be thinking, pride, ego, or just plain stupidity, this stock and company could easily be the end of your future in finance, for the rest of your life. May sound over the top, but it happens. Wouldn’t want to be a stock manipulator for a job. Or any one of you can turn in whomever you’re working for, for 10-20% of whatever the government recovers from the illegal activities going on manipulating these stocks. Once they reveal it and put it on the table, that information is worthless. Go forward now, anonymously to the regulators, you can get a cut, to set yourself up for life. Let them pull down every trade every person who is coordination with anyone else, any broker-dealer that allows their customers to do the dirty deeds for extra returns… to look good to their institutional investors. The embarrassment for those institutional investors, would ruin any investment advisors business, and certainly they would need to do an extremely conspicuous house cleaning.
I think this is your issue. Thugs get no sympathy. Go to jail, skip next turn.
Agreed. Intent is not relevant, at this time. And the focus is not on an intention of the broker dealer to break the law, lie or do anything specifically “wrong”, just that they did things that were, in fact, wrong, I.e. that constituted spoofing or that involved an algorithm that spoofed and the person using the algorithm did not need to know the algorithm, in fact, spoofed a share price. People who think they need to have “intended” to do wrong, are sorely mistaken. These are organizations, and the blame is often diffuse when they engage in actual illegal acts.
Not true, and it is very common for shorts to trash a stock when a company is awaiting approval and even after approval.
You should not be in this asset if you don’t know the space, but given your history, I doubt the primary interest you hope to gain from is a long position. Some people are swing traders and they own some long shares, but they seek to increase swings with non-stop negativity when they are trying to swing the price back down. So they can present themselves as “longs”, because they hang out for a long time and they often own some shares on a long basis, but at any given moment their primary interest can be the opposite of a long.
There are also many traders who are mostly short, but hold shares so that they can claim to actually be “shareholder activists”. This allows them to legally behave extremely badly, but always under the legal guise of “shareholder activist”, making prosecution difficult.