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.
reverse: nah....60 - 70 is the time to buy.
HALF_FULL!!!!!
smallcapnet = paid shill...worthless except for driving a little bit of liquidity at us.
never heard of CERS
LT please continue to direct them here...I am banned because I kept recommending investorshub so I can't anymore...
OT mysscat: that's an interesting oath you guys took...wow. polyheme is actually not "synthetic" -- it is purified and polymerized human hemoglobin. therefore, it would still require the human blood donor system to get source material. BUT, since the shelf life is 12+ months as opposed to 45 days with donated blood, the donated blood could be processed and stored to create a dramatically more stable blood supply. also, since polyheme is universal and requires no cross-typing, it would eliminate the need for hospitals to constantly find donors for the rare types. they would simply store some polyheme and give it to anyone. so...while there would still be a need for human donors, it would utterly revolutionize the current donor system.
but all that, by the way, is just a bonus. the primary indication is to deliver blood at the scene of trauma, since ambulences today only carry saline and not blood (because they'd have to carry so many different types, refrigerate all of them, and cross-type in the field...an absolute logistical nightmare). saline just expands the fluid volume in your body, but blood delivers oxygen. so, when trauma is the leading cause of death for persons under 44, it truly is a shame that there is no way to deliver oxygen at the scene of an injury, and polyheme is the solution for that.
re how high it goes...i think $12 - 14 in the near-term. Then $20 - $50. The $20 range is if we meet only one of the primary endpoints in the SPA (non-inferiority to standard of care), and the $80 range is if we meet both primary endpoints. There are secondary endpoints and a slough of other catalysts that would put us in between.
If you want the stock's maximum upside potential though which assumes the product truly became the new standard of care....the market for a blood substitute has been pinned by Baxter and other independant sources at $6 billion in the U.S alone. At ultra-conservative 10% net margins, and a typical biotech p/e of 30, the max potential for the stock would be around $300/share. But that wouldn't happen for years.
Gold Seeker: I agree re JP Turner. It would be dirtier than a normal PIPE, which is dirty to begin with. ie; 50% discount off of market prices with definite shorting into the deal to hedge downside. But, don't think for a minute that JP Turner gives a rats a** about whether Moro has a colorimetric test or not...that is a laughable thought. They care only about:
1) discount to market price
2) ability to short (ie relationship with market maker, liquidity of locate, ability of the company to produce enough P.R to generate sufficient retail buying to short into, etc)
3) sweeteners
GoldSeeker: re colorimetric test, I based my comment on the below paragraph. Without getting into a Kag style semantic analysis of this paragraph, I will say that whether or not the results were published using the colorimetric test, I am confident in speaking with management and other contacts that the colorimetric test issue is not a big obstacle. The big obstacle is the performance of RECAF on a large sample, not the test format. Please step away from your own limited knowledge and the limited knowledge of this board, be resourceful, and contact some experts on the matter. Circling around the issue on this board will not do anything:
"We determined that a colorimetric blood test using RECAF for cancer detection would be simpler to use and more readily shipped to various labs and companies than our current test that employs low doses of radioactivity. The improvements resulting from this work have magnified the measured differences in serum values for RECAF between normal and cancer patients. This large difference between cancers and normal patients not only allows the detection of smaller tumors, (as recently shown for breast cancers where we can now detect 90% of early stages I and II); but it is also a requirement for a ``yes/no'' rapid test similar to a pregnancy test that could be used directly in the doctors' offices."
Gold_Seeker: you are an intelligent guy and I enjoy reading your posts. However, you are wrong on the PIPE issue. I have been involved in a number of PIPE financing deals, and many of my friends moved on to that scene when it got popular over the last decade. Believe me there are dozens of PIPE groups that would take on BOCX. Re JP Turner, my sources tell me that they are eager to pull financing together for BOCX but that BOCX does not wish to proceed until they build more value via exch listing and/or ABT progress. I can't say I disagree with management on this, as surely a PIPE at higher levels would be less dilutive. At the same time, though, I would love for them to sell a few million shares to get an exchange listing and have working capital. If they do not resolve the listing issue within a few months they should start looking for PIPE financing to get off of the pink sheets.
Re your comment about a "remote possibility" that Moro could come up with a working colorimetric test, that is just inane. Go speak to some people who know what they are talking about (not me), and they will tell you that it is not a big deal to convert an RIA to a colorimetric assay. Moro has already done it as evidenced in the breast cancer data (or was it prostate?), he is just refining the test.
stock: actually it is a b/d issue. and yes, the NASD has been a pain in the a**. the real issue, though, is that BOCX is too broke, unconnected, and understaffed to throw money at the issue, prioritize it, and get it resolved. ie; if they were to approach a b/d about a PIPE or other offering, the b/d would get them listed in a heartbeat.
half_full: what service are you using to get quotes for your cell phone? i have a great need for one but have been unable to find one -- i tried the esignal product but it is horrible. there is a new service coming out in a month which will allow people to send a text message to a 5-digit # to get a real-time stock quote texted back to them. ie; if I texted the word "BOCX" to 23907 it would send me back a text message with a real-time quote. seems like a cool concept and will be cheap ($9.99/month)
foam: i'm back to the korean schoolgirl imagery.
foam: bocx management or ihub management?
mike; yes but they don't prioritize it. i have had some conversations with management over the last few weeks that make me think we really are close. and i've always been a pessimist on that issue.
i'm losing patience with those who are losing patience. go trade futures if you want some quick action...CL/QM is starting up again. i know i'm old fashioned but i just don't understand who taught you all to trade...if you lose confidence, sell. don't whine and complain -- just sell your frigging stock. now...if you haven't lost confidence and the price is lingering, buy or hold what you have. if you are not sure about your level of confidence...also sell.
Half_full OT:
this break-out in NFLD is getting pretty real. my oh my.
Gyro: I'm pretty sure pink sheet stocks are not listed on the SHO list. Also, if I understand it correctly the SHO list only reflects FTD's within the DTCC. Ex-clearing FTD's do not show up. NFLD would be in the mid 20's right now if it weren't for illegal short selling -- the stock has been listed on the daily SHO list about 80% of the time since the list came out last year, and short interest lingers around 25% of float.
BOCX would also be at much higher levels -- no question about it. As I've explained many times, the MM's in a stock like this must short on the way up and buy on the way down, since order flow is one way. When they short on the way up, I have a very hard time believing they always locate the shares and deliver within the Reg SHO timetables given the lack of liquidity and oversight (ie they can legally do a naked short for a time period but they must deliver, which they never do).
As I understand it, there is no way to change things unless the Hill gets involved. Some people recommend that you request shares be put in a cash account, or request physical delivery of the certs. But I believe that is BS.
gyro: yes...without a doubt.
Gyro -- server probably crashed. That video was flying around the message boards since Friday. Amazing info isn't it? Mind-boggling doesn't even begin to describe it.
wow great call LT!!!
this is required viewing for anybody who trades the capital markets. it takes about an hour, but i promise you it is worth your time.
http://www.businessjive.com/nss/darkside.html
half_full: some late day buying coming into NFLD right now...next week should be good. two blocks of 150k traded at the high of the day at the closing. keep in mind the stock averages 150k/day. weeeeeee....it's gonna be a long weekend.
dkeller: you still around or did you bail after the breach of support?
Well guys, looks like we're going to touch our previous lows. Last time around we bounced in the 60 - 70 sent range, let's hope that happens again. I will be a buyer down in the 60's.
fluffy: interesting, but i'm not sure i buy into the idea of Kag being a basher. i must say, though, that DC-STEVE would do the same thing as far as repeating a point over and over and over and over again.
scouty: english is not my first language, but i get by
GoldSeeker: neither of those are straightforward general screening assays. they are both "novel" applications. the first one is for a unique subset (pregnant women
) and has a unique testing procedure...it was submitted as a package with the base assay, confirmatory assay, and third assay for "monitoring" performance. that is very different than a simple yes/no serum assay.
the second one is clearly a novel application as well...monitoring antibody response to a vaccine, testing for immune status, etc.
BOCX, kammerman, and others i've spoken to are telling me that a simple yes/no general screening cancer assay will be given SE status every time. take a look at the OIVD's criteria for SE (below), but more importantly speak to management and others because it is an important issue:
------------------------------------------
SE means that the new device is as safe and effective as the predicate device(s).
A device is SE if, in comparison to a predicate device it:
has the same intended use as the predicate device; and
has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device; or
has different technological characteristics, that do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness, and the sponsor demonstrates that the device is as safe and effective as the legally marketed device.
thanks scouty. you should read "reminiscinces of a stock operator" -- considered the bible for many years in the chicago pits. it's not by livermore but he is discussed quite a bit. great, great read.
PS: per management ABT is basically sure that PMA will not be necessary, which is more important than anything said in my previous post.
Gold: before i invested in BOCX i spoke at length with management and other contacts about this issue (including kammerman)...regulatory path was one of my main concerns because it was seemingly uncharted waters. kammerman is a phD and is an extraordinarily thorough and accomplished medical devices analyst...he laughed at me when i suggested a PMA for this application, and that really turned me on because i detest lengthy regulatory paths.
an SE rating is largely misunderstood on this board based on previous discussions we've had. it's not equivalence by cancer type, it's equivalence by INDICATION. some of the literature at the FDA's OIVD is misleading and confusing. if you want a SE rating for lung cancer assay with general screening indication, they will not look for other lung cancer assays. they will look for other general screening assays.
that is why i scoff when the young and inexperienced morons start talking about esoteric applications like personalized baseline levels for post-operative followup and other "novel" indications. when Moro suggests these things I'm also very annoyed...I HATE LONG TRIALS. I DO NOT WANT NOVEL, I WANT GENERAL SCREENING.
hope that helps. back to my burboun.
Kag: The guy who wanted to create a strict board protocol for greeting new members and pouted for two weeks when it didn't happen is accusing me of trying to create a "sanitized board" ?
Now that's comedy.
My point is simple. Sell if your investment thesis has changed, rather than repeating the same negative point over and over on this board.
Jesse Livermore, who is widely regarded as the greatest trader ever, is famous for saying that you must exit a trade the minute your original reason for entering the trade has been comprimised. Do not continue to rationalize your investment when new information comes in that contradicts your original thesis.
Kag, Reverse, and others who bought the stock with a pie in the sky attitude but have since changed that view based on personalized baseline levels, inability to get off the pink sheets, crappy stock action, or anything else...Listen to Jesse Livermore. Sell your stock, take your losses, and move on.
My original investment thesis was simple and has not been comprimised, which is why I'm still confident about BOCX:
1) Remarkable SAB (phil gold and abilev primarily)
2) Great data for general cancer screening
3) Great shot at a 510k regulatory path
4) Irrational and extreme devaluation of the stock from an SEC blue book technicality (was a HUGE reason for my investment)
5) Great trust in management at all levels after spending significant time with them.
6) Remarkably low cash burn and dilution rates
7) ABBOTT (wasn't part of my original thesis, but i significantly increased my position after the ABT announcement pullback)
Kag: I've also posted many times that this is my first major foray into a non exchange traded stock. The size of my position has nothing to do with my annoyance at your constant repetition of the same point, or with my engagement on this board. I'm an old geezer with nothing better to do. I play tennis, hang with kids and grand-kids, and post on this board. That's about it LOL. It's a good life.
Now...you posted a few weeks ago that you were leaving the board...if you're not going to do that, fine, but at least don't stick around for the sole purpose of rehashing the same tired point over and over and over and over again.
headache: i trust your conversation with Moro and will not waste his time asking him such a silly question.
kag: thank you for repeating the same point for the 15th time...i knew you could do it.
Gyro: i talked to schwarzenberger when they first signed the announcement and will try to reach him again.l
LT: to me whiners are worse than bashers.
gold-seeker: don't get me wrong, there are definitely applications for a personal baseline level...the biggest one being post-treatment relapse monitoring for existing cancer patients. LOL talk about a nightmarish trial... go dig at clinicaltrials.gov for some relapse monitoring cancer marker trials out there...they can take many many years for obvious reasons (you have to wait to see if the cancer comes back following positive readings of the markers)
my point is that the general screening application, which is the biggy, does NOT RELY ON PERSONALIZED BASELINE LEVELS. the results achieved thus far have been based on the universal cutoff value of ~5k units, and they have been damn good...if you don't believe in those results you should not own BOCX stock. when i bring this up, Kag responds with "those results were based on the RIA assay not the new colorimetric assay". same logic applies... if you don't believe that the RIA data can be replicated in the new test format you should not own BOCX stock and thus should not be here.
scouty: yes, all oncofetal cancer science has the limitations wrt to pregnancy (and i've heard bodily trauma recovery when cell division speeds up and some other conditions) but it's a very easy work around to pre-screen for that stuff. that kind of extreme variation above the established universal baseline level of RECAF in healthy patients is NOT what Kag is referring to... he has been repeating over and over again a sentence from a few P.R's ago that referenced small fluctuations within an individual's RECAF level as a potential obstacle to establishing PERSONAL baseline levels. the board, including Headache who spoke to Moro, unanimously interpreted the P.R to mean that personal baseline levels might or might not provide new applications to complement the general screening using the established universal baseline levels, but were in no way a replacement for the documented universal baseline level of 5k units RECAF...Kag viewed it as a potential deal-breaker and has been repeating the line ever since. IMHO his conclusion about the P.R is unfathomably weak -- cute the first time around but not worthy of bi-weekly repetition.
LOL...Kag I thought you said you were leaving? Or do you just reappear every 3 days to restate the issue of varying levels of RECAF in the body. Please be a man of your word and leave...either that or say something new.