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.
NJ,
Price has been respecting the purple trendline since August, so you are in correct in saying that it needs to break it for any significant movement to the upside.
The market has been respecting this 1.30-1.40 area for a while now so it is safe to say that we are seeing significant amount of support in this area. This is not to say this area will not break, but the probability of price dropping past this area grows weaker if it continues to linger around this area.
Let's see what happens. I'd like to see price break the resistance trendline with significant strength.
Hi Nuke,
Haven't been keeping up with the board lately, but have you posted any postings regarding future catalysts/news? I found the last one you did pretty helpful.
Thanks,
Jeremy
Wondering the same thing.
I suppose this really proves that the Flint studies weren't that big of a deal, in contrast with what many on the board believed to be a catalyst for higher price movement.
Now, this makes me wonder whether the other catalysts we think may move PPS higher are true ...
Hi Abnisk,
You called Talhia today and she said the gag order is still in effect?
Thanks!
Agreed.
The quarterly report is for the period ending September 30, so we do not know what other amounts RAI may have paid to STSI “pursuant to the agreement” after September 30. We could just as easily see another statement in their next 10-Q that they paid $XX Million to Star “pursuant to” the Agreement.
Quick question for the board:
Anyone called Talhia to ask if the gag order has been lifted?
Thanks
Does anyone know what time RAI is releasing their 10q today? If I'm not mistaken, the CC is only happening tomorrow.
1.) If it were to have dropped to 'pennyland', it would have done so already. Current PPS already reflects the lack of news ... and last I checked, PPS wasn't in 'pennyland'.
2.) It has been almost three weeks since news broke over the 'settlement'. The simple fact of the matter is, if the settlement was bad for STSI, STSI would've announced it already. You do not need three weeks to spin a 'I'm sorry, we lost' press release.
3.) Over the last two weeks, members of the board have been presenting an increasing amount of evidence to support the fact that confidential discussions have been occurring since August between RJR and STSI.
4.) Combine all this knowledge with your powers of deduction, any fool (excluding you and members of that puerile Yahoo board) would be able to see where STSI is headed. After all, if you have watched that Paul Tudor Jones documentary 'Trader', you'd remember the line (I paraphrase): "If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... it definitely ain't a cow".
And this settlement, friends, definitely isn't a cow.
It's like you're trying to write haikus.
Someone called Talhia the other day ...
According to Talhia, 8-K is explicitly not required to update litigation or settlement status.
Right. Someone on the Yahoo board said that some information regarding the settlement will be out in the next 10Q. So I guess we'll know at least a little something by Nov 9th ...
So, why do you think Star walked away with nothing after 11 years of litigation? What do you think made them give up after fighting tooth-and-nail for over a decade? And why now? Why not earlier this year? Why not next year?
Interested in knowing. Thanks.
Hi Lief,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the company has released any form of statement announcing the settlement. Actually, I don't believe the company has said anything regarding a settlement thus far. All the news we've received so far is from PACER and third-party news sites such as Bloomberg etc.
Just out of curiosity, anyone called RAI's investors relations yet?
Has anyone considered calling RJR/RAI to reconfirm whether they are under a gag order regarding the Star settlement? If they are, then we can safely assume that they may still be trying to work it out.
Essentially, I believe (like almost everyone else) that if Star capitulated and settled for peanuts (which is HIGHLY doubtful to begin with) ... why would there still be a gag order? Why would you put a gag on a simple 'sorry guys but we settled for peanuts'? Do they really need a week to spin a 'we-messed-up' PR statement?
I think what needs to be clarified right now is whether this 'gag order' is internal (or agreed upon between Star and RJR), or whether it is still external (i.e, judicial/court-mandated).
According to a number of forum posters, it is unlikely that it could still be a court-mandated gag order ...
Leif, I agree with you; I don't see how and why this is the end of litigation. It very well could be but at this point everything seems like speculation to me.
What does make me slightly hopeful is what many people have pointed out: Star would only agree to have the petition withdrawn if it benefited them. We all know how it would benefit RJR (withdrawal would like better than an SC denial in Star 2), but how would it benefit Star?
Quick question guys ...
Has anything been posted on PACER yet? If nothing gets posted on PACER within the next week or so, is it safe to say that the meeting didn't occur?
Thanks.
j
You're absolutely right. However, I do think the Gilford analyst makes a fair point. There are about 27 - 30 million cases of diagnosed Thyroiditis. About 80% of these cases are hypothyroidism which is about 22-24 million cases. If we assume at least 1% of these 22-24 million cases are caused by Hashimoto's and they take Anatabloc daily, we are looking at (roughly) 80-100 mill in yearly sales revs just based on the hypothyroidism market alone (Assuming 1 user spends $400 yearly on Anatabloc). I don't think that's too much of a stretch to assume.
justthinkin on SeekingAlpha has continuously refuted this argument of yours on the SeekingAlpha comment boards. In fact, he has refuted many of your arguments over there but yet it is amazing to me how you do not reply to each of his refutations and still continue to spout the same arguments here. And just as a sidenote, I think his arguments are better reasoned and more factually correct than yours are - no offense dude.
This is an honest question: what is your motivation for coming back here? Almost everyone here is almost as stubborn as you are on their position regarding STSI. I don't understand where your incessant need to be right comes from; everyone has money on the line here. Are you really that concerned about people losing money on this stock? Or do you have something deep-seated against Star?
Hi seek the light,
Where in the 10Q does it say that reported sales were from anatabloc.com only? If you could point it out to me, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks!
Agreed. Always treat your talent well. They're the ones selling, developing and marketing your product, no?
In any case, they won't be receiving another bonus until Anatabloc sales revs hit 10 mill.
Anyone know how to listen in on the upcoming conference call?
Would be great if you could post any progress you have with A'bloc on this board! Looking forward to them. Best of luck!
-j
Skiguy,
Interesting take. Even if you compare QoQ growth over the last few quarters, there has been growth in revenue. Of course, not as staggering as YoY growth, but still commendable.
Anatabloc is slowly gaining traction (slower than I'd like, admittedly). Simply put, it works for some and it does not work for others. It's the same for prescription (and recreational) drugs too. We're not all biologically identical; you really can't say that if it doesn't work for someone, everyone else must be lying (or is a pumper etc.).
On the SCOTUS issue, I believe you have very valid points. I, for one, do not believe that Star 2 is in Star's bag ... it will be a long fight. But with that said, the SCOTUS will only be ruling over the older patents - not the new 2012 patent. The symbol change on Monday is indicative that Star wants to get out of the Tobacco business. If they do, I reckon they'll be selling the entire division off - which includes the new 2012 patent.
As such, whether the SCOTUS rules the patents as valid or invalid .. it does not matter. Star has the 2012 patent and Altria or Lorillard must be more than interested in buying them because of new FDA regulations and other reasons. What reasons? If Star goes to Altria/Lorillard, you can bet that they are going to market the crap out of 'Zero TSNA' cigarettes. And do you really think consumers would not want cigs that have a lesser chance of giving them cancer? This is biased, but me and my friends will definitely be buying Zero-TSNA cigs regardless of brand (better if it's RJR because I enjoy Camels!).
RJR has the upperhand over the other Big T companies now; they can say 'Let us buy your tobacco division and call this off'. I'm sure Star will oblige. If not, if RJR is not willing to settle as you so claim, Star will simply go to either Altria/Lorillard with their patents and will be provided with fresh financial ammo for Star 2.
Things have changed a lot since the beginning of this year and as such, this litigation negotiation process has become more complex than you think it is. I advise you to think it through before continuing with your position.
According to the clinicaltrials.gov website, the study should be completed by this November (This is assuming subject recruitment goes according to plan, I'm guessing). But I've seen people on this board (and other boards) say that interim results should be expected sometime during Q3.
Essentially, Hashimoto's sufferers do not know they have Hashimoto's until their symptoms get very, very severe.
From what I understand, the symptoms of Hashimoto's at the beginning of the disease is falsely benign; meaning, even if they have the symptoms, they usually do not know they have Hashimoto's. Check out the list of symptoms: http://www.medicinenet.com/hashimotos_thyroiditis/article.htm#what_are_the_symptoms_of_hashimotos_thyroiditis.
Apparently, most people associate these symptoms as being old age and therefore they don't do anything about it. A person usually only knows something is wrong if these symptoms become very bad, or if their thyroid starts swelling.
This is as familiar I get with the disease progression. Someone with Thyroditis would be better equipped to answer this I think!
Estimating the Hashimoto's Thyroiditis Market
Hi all, I've been following a thread on the Yahoo! message board since this morning with interest. The gist of the thread (at least in the beginning) was to estimate potential revenue figures for the autoimmune thyroiditis (Hashimoto's thyroiditis) market.
There were some great points made, especially one made by izof_texas: most people do not know they have Hashimoto's Thyroiditis until something significant happens - therefore severely reducing the market. However, if we go according to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists' figures (this is a PDF link), there are about 14 million Hashimoto's Thyroiditis sufferers.
I'm going to do a conservative estimate:
Now, we don't know how many of these 14 million Hashimoto's Thyroiditis sufferers are actually diagnosed with Hashimoto's. But let's say 1% of this 14 million figure (140,000 Hashimoto sufferers) are actually diagnosed with Hashimoto's and decide to purchase Anatabloc for a year.
If we go with a super-conservative estimate of 3 lozenges a day, that works out to be about 1095 lozenges per year. (3 lozenges * 365 days per year = 1095 lozenges) So 1095 lozenges equates to about 5.475 bottles per year (1095/200 - 5.475; assuming that there are 200 lozenges per bottle).
So if 140,000 Hashimoto Sufferers need 5.475 bottles per year, we're looking at 766500 bottles sold per year.
If Star earns revenue of $70 (you can play around with this number) per bottle, we are looking at $53.655 million in revenue per year.
And this is only with 140,000 Hashimoto sufferers.
***
As the popularity of Anatabloc surges, there is no doubt that more and more doctors will start suggesting Anatabloc to ameliorate their patients' Hashimoto symptoms. Even if you simply double my estimate of 140,000 sufferers to 280,000 sufferers, we're looking at at least $100 million in revenue. That's quite a lot of money for just having 2% of the market buy your product. But we have to remember, this is only contingent on the Thyroiditis clinical trials producing positive results. If these clinical trial results are positive, we are looking at being the first in a multi-million dollar market.
The exciting thing, we have to realize, is that this is only 1 market out of many that Anatabloc could possibly fit in. Anecdotal accounts already suggest that Anatabloc may be effective in alleviating the symptoms of Crohn's disease (not cure it). About 700,000 people suffer from Crohn's disease; you can play around with the math and figure out how much revenue Anatabloc were to make.
I hope others will play around with the numbers and post it here. Would be great to see different thinking on this. In the end, I have to say that this excites me as I'm sure I don't have to mention how many other diseases Anatabloc can help with (thereby opening up even more markets for Star).
The only thing we can do now is wait and see when and how things will take off.
Just my two cents.
Could they be on the verge of making a deal to sell their tobacco curing process to RJ Reynolds and exiting the tobacco business entirely? Sorry, had to throw that out there.
cool story bro
Gilford Securities initiates buy on Star Scientific
http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/12/08/2796119/update-gilford-securities-initiates-buy-on-star-scientif
A poster on InvestorVillage said that the analyst covering is Otis Bradley.
An excerpt from the report: http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2013&mn=4472&pt=msg&mid=11973596
Might this explain today's spike?
This makes perfect sense. The AAPL comparison is valid; check out this website to see the iPhone pricing history. (http://aaplinvestors.net/stats/iphone/pricing/)
Thanks for sharing.
Star's new BDL patents
Great points, Nuke. I find your logic secure and I'm of the opinion that Star's new TSNA BDL patents + the new FDA oversights due this year will only benefit Star.
However, I want to bring up some points regarding RJR's position on the new BDL patents. We all know Star has the upper hand in settlement negotiations only if RJR is interested in entering the zero cancer-causing market. Thus, it is up to speculation as to whether RJR wants to be the first to enter this market. If they do, all they have to do is negotiate with Star, because Star has the patents (the keys) to the market.
Or do they?
I did a Google Patent search for prevention of formation of TSNAs. There was one patent that revolved around genetically modifying a tobacco plant to reduce the formation of TSNAs (still present from what I understand ... look up 'Mark A. Conkling') which didn't interest me much.
But there WAS one that did catch my eye ... http://www.google.com/patents/US7650892 "Methods for hindering formation of tobacco-specific nitrosamines"
The original assignee is "Rosswil LLC Ltd.". I did a quick google search and found out that "Rosswil LLC Ltd." is really "American Snuff Company" (or Conwood Company, LLC) http://trademarks.justia.com/715/55/n-a-71555349.html
If you do a wiki search on "American Snuff Company" ... guess who acquired them in 2006? That's right ... RJR.
Now my questions are these:
1.) I read the Rosswil patent and I'm under the assumption that it only applies to dark-fire tobacco. Star's patents work on Burley/Virginia tobacco which is the tobacco used primarily in cigarettes. Is it possible that the Rosswil patented method will work on Burley/Virginia tobacco? My understanding of tobacco is very limited. If anyone could answer this, it'd be great.
2.) What does this signify about RJR's intent on entering the zero cancer causing market? The Rosswil patent was filed in 2008 ... 2 years after the acquisition by RJR. Hence, why was it filed under 'Rosswil' and not RJR? Would it matter, considering Rosswil's intellectual property would be RJR's anyway?
Could this mean that they are trying to develop an alternative to Star's BDL patents?
***
Regardless, I find this intriguing. Perhaps this is indicative of RJR's intent on entering the zero cancer causing market. But the ultimate question is this: does RJR need the new Star BDL patents? Or can they make the Rosswil patents work for themselves?
Would be great if anyone could comment on this.
Just my two cents...
The first 10 seconds actually cracked me up haha. Love it.
Thanks for the post. Can't wait for it to go national!
This lady has suffered Crohn's since 1997. She recently started taking Anatabloc (on it for about 2 weeks) and is recording each week on her blog (She's a lifestyle blogger with a small following).
Check it out:
http://www.urbandomesticdiva.com/search/label/anatabine
NJ and abnisk has done a thorough job of rebutting your points, so let me just add one more thing.
In your sixth point, I think you underestimate the importance of the Star patents. Since you are quoting for the Q4 2011 earnings call, let me quote (from that same call) the last question/answer in that transcript. (From SeekingAlpha, I have added italics/underline for emphasis)
"Theodore Jenkins
On the back of the comments for the patent litigation. Given those developments, I mean, despite the jury result absolving RJR of a 2-year window of direct infringement. I am concerned that there's still seemingly additional years of potentially a significant subsequent liability. But I am heartened that you would agree to enter into a mediation process. But more to my point, given these developments and given the new regulatory oversight with the FDA. And given that there are technologies that removes tobacco [indiscernible] levels. Do you believe it would be a competitive edge to be possibly first amongst your peers to offer tobacco products embodying zero-cancer-causing agents and would that be a strategy in concert with your mission to transform tobacco, increase your share and protect your customers to the utmost of your ability?
Daniel M. Delen
Frankly, I think we're very, very confident in our sort of defenses in this case. And very confident in our position for the years going forward as well. And I think that's really all I'd like to comment at this stage on that front. We, as a company, obviously believe very much in our sort of mission in harm reduction, particularly as it applies between different product categories over time. And I think that's what our focus is. And as I described in some of the Q&A earlier is really where we are focused as a company."
Realize after that very confident answer (in which you quoted), he backtracks and gives this total non-answer answer. This piece of information is what fuels the certainty that there will be a settlement. Let's analyze his reply specifically:
First off, the question posits that 'competitive edge' equals 'first on the market to offer zero cancer causing products'. So ...
A.) If he had said 'Yes' and agreed that it would be a competitive edge, then this is more or less an admission to Star's upper-hand in mediation talks. How so? Star has the patents for zero TSNA tobacco. Unless there other valid methods of producing zero TSNA tobacco, they are going to need to license those patents from Star to produce zero TSNA products.
So it goes without saying that if he had said 'Yes', it would've, more or less, meant that they were going to settle with Star.
B.) If Mr. Delen had simply said 'No, we wouldn't have a competitive edge if we were the first to offer zero cancer causing products', it would have meant that Reynolds believes having those patents won't give them any advantage, so there is no reason left for settling. What other reason would Reynolds have left for settling with Star? A statement like this would be the clearest indication that they don't need anything from Star, and in turn, won't be giving/settling anything.
***
So, because he has neither agreed nor denied the question .... our question becomes this: 'Does Reynolds want to enter the zero cancer-causing market?'. This is probably what Reynolds is trying to figure out right now (or have already figured out - who knows right?).
If they want access, the only way to do so is through Star (unless other patents/methods come out). If not, then they really don't need those patents from Star and thus, have nothing to settle for.
Until Reynolds firmly denies wanting to enter the zero cancer-causing market and/or the emergence of other patents/methods for lowering TSNA levels, you cannot say with utmost certainty that 'Settlement talks will not happen'. And that is a fact.
Here is where I start speculating:
I believe Reynolds would commit an epic strategic blunder if they were to pass over this chance. They have the opportunity to be the first to enter the market, and this is the reason why Mr. Delen would not answer the Jenkins question. It would definitely give them the competitive edge that Ted Jenkins was talking about.
But if, for some what reason, they do NOT settle ... heck, with the new FDA regulations on displaying TSNA percentages, do you think Altria and the others will just stand by without doing anything?
That's the end of my speculation. I eagerly await your rebuttal.
Just my two cents.
I believe Star's best bet is to market Anatabloc as a means to manage your CRP levels. And then they can list a number of symptoms associated with high CRP levels in diseases that cause high CRP levels.
CRP is a bio-marker of inflammation levels: meaning, the higher your CRP count, the higher inflammation levels you have. From what I understand, the Flint studies were designed to assess the efficacy of Anatabine in reducing CRP levels (therefore, inflammation levels).
Here's the thing, Crohn's/Fibromyalgia etc. aren't caused by inflammation; inflammation is a by-product of the disease. For example, in this study (http://jgp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/49.abstract), they showed that higher CRP levels correlated with higher dementia scores (meaning more CRP meant more dementia), and lower CRP levels correlated with less cognitive impairment (MMSE scores). But the caveat mentioned in the abstract is that " .. though elevated CRP levels are not useful for prediction in the immediate prodrome years before AD becomes clinically manifest.". This essentially means that just because you have high CRP levels, it does not mean you will necessarily get Alzheimer's, meaning high inflammation levels do not cause Alzheimer's.
So in this sense, we can't say that Anatabine will cure Alzheimer's or Crohn's (etc.) because high CRP/inflammation levels are not the cause of these diseases. However, they are effective in managing these diseases because Anatabine reduces CRP/inflammation levels, and therefore reducing the symptoms caused by high inflammation levels.
As a result, I think Star's bet is to stay clear of any claims to a miracle cure. What will be effective is to market Anatabloc as a medium to manage your disease, not cure it. In doing so, I believe this will stave of those people that call any miracle cure claims as bogus.
Just my two cents.
Anatabloc on "Man up" with Dr. Harry Fisch this Saturday, July 14th.
http://anatabloc.com/2012/07/man-up-with-dr-harry-fisch-and-anatabloc/
Someone called Star Investor Relations today and only one person was in the office ...
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=2013&mn=4219&pt=msg&mid=11895456
impending good news?
(message deleted earlier by mistake)
It seems he wrote this article last year: http://www.pitbullwizard.blogspot.com/2011/05/cgix-big-tobacco-or-big-pharma.html
It's core points has remained unchanged since then. I also wonder why he decided to submit it to SA only now ...