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.
Where are you getting this information? Please explain your comment.
A Nov 9 Washington Post article related to this issue is at either of the two links below or text copied below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/11/09/controversy-erupts-over-plan-to-let-pentagon-use-unapproved-drugs-on-battlefield/?utm_term=.c2f0da200bb2
or,
http://wapo.st/2yMoxmo
Controversy erupts over plan to let Pentagon authorize unapproved drugs for battlefield use
By Laurie McGinley Washington Post, November 9
"Should the Pentagon be allowed to authorize the use of unapproved drugs and medical devices on an emergency basis for combat soldiers?
That question has sparked a furious battle this week among some of Washington's biggest power players, with the Defense Department and its congressional advocates on one side and the Food and Drug Administration and the health committees on the other.
The Capitol Hill clash was set off by a provision in the annual defense authorization bill.
The provision would allow the secretary of defense to authorize the emergency use of drugs and devices that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The permission would apply to military personnel who are outside the United States. The purpose, the bill says, would be “to reduce the number of deaths or the severity of harm to members of the armed forces .?.?. caused by a risk or agent of war.”
Under current law, the FDA has the sole authority to make decisions on medical products, including during an emergency. The Defense Department can ask the FDA to grant an emergency authorization to use unapproved drugs and devices if there's a threat of a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agent.
The FDA and leaders of congressional health committees say that giving the Pentagon the authority to decide whether to use unapproved drugs and devices could expose soldiers to dangerous products. Members of the defense panels and the Pentagon argue that the measure would save lives by ensuring that soldiers in combat situations get cutting-edge treatments.
Capitol Hill talks to resolve the dispute are now underway. The FDA and the leaders of the health committees favor a different approach that would create an expedited process for the Pentagon's emergency-use requests. That would be similar to the FDA's “breakthrough” designation for promising drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. If lawmakers agree on new language, it could be offered as an amendment to the defense bill or in future legislation. The House-Senate conference report, filed Wednesday, which includes the provision to allow unapproved drugs and devices, could be voted on by the House as soon as next week.
Regardless of the outcome of the talks, the disagreement, first reported by Politico, puts on public display an internal rift within the administration and in Republican congressional ranks.
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, in remarks at an event on the opioid epidemic sponsored by the Hill on Tuesday, expressed unhappiness with the defense-bill language, saying medical-product approvals should be kept under his agency's control.
“We think we provide a level of oversight that helps ensure the safety of products, helps follow-up to make sure that if there are adverse events we're monitoring them, we're collecting that information,” he said.
Navy Cmdr. Gary Ross, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the Defense Department, if given the emergency authorization, would exercise caution.
“Patient safety is at the heart of everything we do,” he said. “If DOD is given this authority, we would work closely with our FDA colleagues to ensure lifesaving treatments are fielded quickly while protecting patient safety.”
Under the defense bill's language, the Pentagon would be required to create a panel of outside experts to recommend when an unapproved product should be used, and defense officials would have to consult with the FDA — but would not have to follow its advice.
Congressional supporters of the provision say lawmakers are frustrated over what they see as FDA delays in approving freeze-dried plasma, a dehydrated form of plasma that is intended to be quickly reconstituted and given to soldiers during military operations. Such plasma is being used by a small number of U.S. troops under limited permission from FDA, and by some U.S. allies.
“Members feel like if the secretary of defense thinks this is a life-and-death situation and there’s something on the market internationally that can make a difference but hasn’t been approved by the FDA, there ought to be a way to short-circuit the process and get it on the battlefield as soon as we can,” a House aide said.
Gottlieb said that the FDA could approve the plasma as soon as 2018, more quickly than if the Pentagon had to develop its own review process.
The Pentagon provision has strong support among defense lawmakers of both parties, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.); ranking member Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.); House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), and ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.).
In a letter to those lawmakers on Thursday, five former FDA commissioners who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations -- Margaret Hamburg, Jane Hanney, David Kessler, Mark McClellan and Andrew von Eschenbach -- denounced the provision and said it "likely increases the risks for our military personnel."
Lawmakers who support the FDA position include Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Greg Walden, (R-Ore.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said it is a “horrible idea” for the Pentagon to get authorization to use unapproved materials on troops. “It will endanger the FDA's authority and endanger the soldiers,” he said.
Some critics pointed to the Pentagon's past failures to protect soldiers from potentially dangerous experimentation. For example, for many years during the last century, thousands of troops were exposed to mustard gas, hallucinogens and other dangerous substances without their knowledge."
Status of potential NASDAQ delisting?
Anyone have any info/update on the status of this from last Feb 1?
July 31st was supposed to be the cut-off date. What happened?
ITEM 3.01 Notification of Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard
"On February 1, 2017, Aethlon Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) received a written notification from the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC that it has not met the minimum of $35,000,000 in Market Value of Listed Securities (“MVLS”) for the last 30 consecutive business days (from December 15, 2016-January 31, 2017) as set forth in Listing Rule 5550(b)(2).
The notification does not result in the delisting of the Company's common stock at this time, and its common stock will continue to trade on the Nasdaq Capital Market.
The Company has been provided with a 180 calendar day period (by July 31, 2017) in which to gain compliance by closing with an MVLS of at least $35,000,000 for any 10 consecutive business days during that period, and this matter would then be automatically closed."
Maybe the Hemopurifer still has a role in the ebola fight?
Article from the Wall Street Journal:
Vaunted Ebola Vaccine Faces Questions
Deadly Ebola outbreak two years ago led to a vaccine that seemed highly effective, but a new study questions the claim
By Thomas M. Burton and Michelle Hackman
April 24, 2017 6:21 p.m. ET
The deadly Ebola outbreak in West Africa two years ago, the worst in recorded history, led to a vaccine that seemingly would stop the next Ebola epidemic in its tracks.
In December, doctors from the World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders and other groups reported in the British medical journal The Lancet that a vaccine from Merck MRK +1.01% & Co. and NewLink Genetics Corp. NLNK -0.16% tested during the outbreak proved to be 100% effective at preventing people from contracting the hemorrhagic fever once the vaccine’s protection kicked in.
Now there are questions about that claim. A panel of scientists from the esteemed U.S. National Academy of Medicine has challenged the methodology of that 4,160-patient trial in the African nation of Guinea. They conclude the vaccine “most likely provides some protection to recipients” but that protection “could in reality be quite low.”
“There is greater uncertainty about how effective this vaccine is,” said one of the National Academy authors, Kathryn Edwards, chief of pediatrics and a vaccine specialist at Vanderbilt University.
Merck and NewLink didn’t immediately comment on the finding.
The finding is of great consequence. In the event of another Ebola epidemic, a vaccine with modest usefulness may still prevent deaths but not provide a total firewall. The last outbreak involved 28,616 Ebola cases, and led to more than 11,300 deaths.
The 287-page National Academy report tells the comprehensive story of vaccines and drugs tried in West Africa. The drugs mostly failed, and the Merck vaccine study remains the most important work so far.
The National Academy is a private nonprofit organization that serves as an advisory group to the U.S. government. The Ebola study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Those entities were parties to a fierce scientific debate that erupted during the Ebola epidemic. Clinicians from groups like Doctors Without Borders and Britain’s University of Oxford argued it was unethical to conduct a normal clinical study with patients randomly assigned to a vaccine or a placebo. That is the gold standard in science, but one that would exclude half of patients from potentially preventive treatment. They contended it was immoral to exclude villagers and health-care workers on the front lines from the vaccine.
Doctors at the NIH, FDA and HHS countered that no one knew if the vaccines and drugs worked or were harmful, so a randomized study was essential.
On this question, the National Academy report was definitive: “This committee found…that the randomized controlled trial was an ethical and appropriate design to use, even in the context of the Ebola epidemic.”
But the Guinea vaccination trial was a compromise. Instead of randomizing people, it randomized groups of people who had had contact with an infected person. Researchers identified a ring of human contacts in the area where Ebola broke out. In the first ring, villagers were to be vaccinated right away. The next ring of contacts, or “cluster,” received a delayed vaccination after 21 days, the outside time period for someone to show Ebola symptoms. That randomization was then expanded to more areas throughout Guinea.
Estimating that a vaccine would take 10 days to be effective, researchers counted Ebola cases that erupted 10 days or more after the first case. In this analysis, there were no new Ebola cases in the immediate-vaccination clusters, and 16 in delayed clusters; hence, the 100% statement.
One of the Guinea vaccine-study researchers, Ira Longini of the University of Florida, said in an interview, “Not a single vaccinated person became ill after being vaccinated.”
However, people did get ill in the first nine days after vaccination. During that period, 20 of 3,232 participants got Ebola in nine of 51 immediate-vaccination rings, versus 21 of 3,096 in seven of 47 clusters randomized to receive delayed vaccination.
So there is agreement the vaccine works. But the National Academy team concluded that varying ways of analyzing the data lead to differing estimates of how effective the vaccine is.
One confounding issue is that there are indications that exposure to the illness varied from town to town. “The small proportion of clusters in which Ebola cases were reported raises a concern about the comparability of risk across clusters,” the panel wrote.
Also, about one-third of the people assigned to immediate vaccination didn’t get vaccinated (some villagers declined)—a phenomenon that generally raises red flags in research. A concern is that health-conscious people who got vaccinated had different characteristics from the others, damaging the effort toward an impartial study.
“The rules of science and research don’t change during an outbreak,” said H. Clifford Lane, deputy director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “The widely publicized number of 100% was not based on the most rigorous analysis of the data.”
Write to Thomas M. Burton at tom.burton@wsj.com and Michelle Hackman at Michelle.Hackman@wsj.com
Departure of Franklyn S. Barry, Jr
Anyone want to speculate as to the departure of Franklyn S. Barry, Jr, being a plus or minus for the future of AEMD?
What is the most plausible explanation as to why he is leaving now?
A Google search of Mr Barry produces such info as:
“Mr. Franklyn S. Barry, Jr. served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Aethlon Medical Inc. (formerly, Bishop Equities Inc.,) from March 10, 1999 to May 31, 2001. Mr. Barry served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Hemex from April 1997 to May 31, 2001. From 1994 to April 1997, he was a private consultant. Previously, he served as the President of Sheridan Companies and President of Ingram Software. Earlier, He served as the President of Fisher Price Toys and as co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Software Distribution Services, which today operates as Ingram Micro-D. He has over 25 years of experience in managing and building companies. He has been a Director of Barrister Global Services Network Inc., since 1991, Aethlon Medical Inc., since March 10, 1999 and Merchants Mutual Insurance Company since 1981. He served as a Director of Merchants Insurance Group, Inc. from 1986 to 1994.”
Stockhorizon: I welcome your thoughts on the following:
I’m a long-time long on AEMD going all the way back to 2006. Initially, I found most of your critical comments about AEMD unsettling. However, in the last twelve months or so, I’ve become a believer in your analysis. (I try to live by three mantras: “Bad news does not get better with time.”; “There are two sides to every story and the truth usually lies somewhere in between.”; and, “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” – Conan the Barbarian.)
Thus, I welcome your thoughts/analysis on the following questions:
1. What are the chances of organizing enough shareholders (individual and institutional) to wrest control of AEMD from JJ? It always amazes me that activist investors with as little control as 5-10% of the company’s stock can force changes on the management and boards of Fortune 500 companies. How “doable” would this be with AEMD?
2. How or what is causing the last couple of week’s major drop in AEMD’s share price? Is it individual investors, institutional investors, or some other nefarious group? Or is it that the "chickens are finally coming home to roost" for JJ and AEMD?
3. Realizing you don’t have a crystal ball, what’s the most likely scenario for where AEMD goes from here? Bankruptcy? Insolvency? Buy-out from a larger biopharma company or group of investors? At these share prices, it doesn’t look like JJ is going to be able to keep running AEMD like he has so far.
Thanks.
Confirming AEMD “insider” stock ownership
I appreciate anyone’s help/comments reference confirming the data below and answering two fundamental questions:
(1.) How many total AEMD shares do Joyce, Kenley and Frakes each currently own?
(2.) Do the “key executives most recent annual compensation” figures below reflect only direct payments (salary), or do they also reflect the value of stock compensation plus annual salary?
Thanks to anyone willing to help.
///////////////////////////////////////////////
AEMD shares Outstanding: 7.78M
Float: 6.82M
Shares / % held by insiders: 710,270 / 9.13%
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Key executives share ownership:
James Joyce, founder, chairman & CEO: _______ ?
Rodney Kenley, president & director: _______ ?
James Frakes, CFO: _______ ?
///////////////////////////////////////////////
Key executives most recent annual compensation:
James Joyce, founder, chairman & CEO: $645,000
Rodney Kenley, president & director: $318,000
James Frakes, CFO: $351,430
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
AEMD’s SEC filing on Nov 08, 2016 for the six months ended Sep 30, 2016:
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=882291&accession_number=0001683168-16-000543&xbrl_type=v#
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Update: NFL concussion-initiative
The article below appeared in today’s Washington Post. Note the reference to “Boston University researcher Robert Stern.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/09/15/house-republicans-ask-agency-to-review-nfl-nih-interactions-over-research-funding/
House Republicans ask agency to review NFL, NIH interactions over research funding
By Mark Maske September 15, 2016 Washington Post
Four members of a House committee have requested that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services review the interaction between the NFL and the National Institutes of Health regarding funding for research into brain injuries.
The referral letter to the HHS’s office of the inspector general was signed by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as well as three other Republican members, Reps. Tim Murphy and Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania, and Michael C. Burgess of Texas.
“It is possible the NIH acted appropriately,” they wrote. “Perhaps the same can be argued for other parties involved. In the opinion of the Republican staff, the Committee does not have all the facts necessary to reach those conclusions. … While this grant award has become an unfortunate distraction from the greater issue of improving the science of traumatic brain injury (TBI), given the significant public attention to these events, it is clear that a thorough and objective review by the HHS OIG is necessary.”
In May, a report by Democratic members of the same committee, led by ranking member Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), accused the NFL of trying to pressure the NIH to take a $16 million project from Boston University researcher Robert Stern. The project was to be funded from an unrestricted $30 million donation from the NFL to the NIH.
“The NFL attempted to use its ‘unrestricted gift’ as leverage to steer funding away from one of its critics,” the report said.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell defended the league’s actions at the time.
“We have several members that are advisers on our committees. … who have had experience with NIH or worked with NIH,” Goodell said in May. “And these are very important to continue to have that kind of dialogue through appropriate channels, which our advisers have. They have those relationships. That’s a standard practice.
“So we have our commitment of $30 million to the NIH. We’re not pulling that back one bit. We continue to focus on things that our advisers believe are important to study. Ultimately it’s the NIH’s decision.”
In a written statement Thursday, the league said: “The NFL has never wavered in its commitment to advance the science and understanding of concussions and traumatic brain injuries. The league’s $30 million commitment to the FNIH/NIH was never in doubt and at no time — as FNIH has confirmed — did the NFL suggest that it would not fulfill that commitment to the last dollar. While there were concerns regarding the NIH’s selection of research applicants, the NFL never suggested — nor considered — doing anything other than honoring that commitment in its entirety. It is unfortunate that the deployment of the remaining $16 million in research funds has been tied up in what the Committee’s letter calls a ‘distraction.’ ”
Bloomberg article “Self-Service Dialaysis”
Any thoughts/comments on the following?
I saw this item in the 22-28 August edition of Bloomberg Businessweek in the Technology/Innovation section, page 34.
My questions:
1. How are their filter cartridges different/similar to the Hemopurifier? Any possible patent infringement issues?
2. How did they obtain FDA approval so relatively quickly compared to Athelon?
3. Is this any possible threat/competition to Aethelon down the road? (Obviously, this device is not as compact and portable as the Hemopurifier.)
Below is the text from the article. Go to this link to see the full Businessweek article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-17/a-self-serve-dialysis-machine-may-be-coming-home-with-you
“A Self-Serve Dialysis Machine May Be Coming Home With You -Tablo is a largely automated machine designed for patients to use by themselves.
By Michael Belfiore Bloomberg Businessweek August 17, 2016
Innovator: Leslie Trigg. Age: 45. Chief executive officer of Outset Medical, an 85-employee company in San Jose.
Form and function: Tablo is a 150-pound, 3-foot-tall, largely automated dialysis machine designed for patients to use by themselves, with a simple step-by-step procedure that makes it easier to operate than existing home machines.
Origin: Outset was founded as Home Dialysis Plus in 2003 with technology licensed from HP and Oregon State University and developed by co-founder Michael Baker.
Funding: Outset has raised more than $100 million, plus $40 million in debt financing, from investors including Warburg Pincus and Fidelity Investments.
Market: About 460,000 U.S. patients have end-stage kidney diseases that require help from dialysis clinicians, typically three times a week.
Early use: Outset says testers age 29-79 were able to prep the dialysis machine for use in 10 to 12 minutes with minimal training. Connect: After logging into Tablo’s tablet touchscreen using an encrypted USB stick, the patient installs a disposable filter in the machine, then inserts two needles into an arm so blood can flow through the machine. Use: The patient follows Tablo’s prompts to begin dialysis, which takes three to four hours. Tablo streams the data to the patient’s health-care providers.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved Tablo for use in clinics and hospitals, and the company began selling the devices earlier this month; Trigg wouldn’t disclose a price. Eventually the plan is to put them in homes. “Tablo redirects workflow away from what is, today, thousands of human steps per treatment,” says nephrologist Melvin Seek in Ocala, Fla.
Questions re Aethlon versus ExThera’s products
I was intrigued by an earlier post regarding ExThera Medical. A quick scan of their website (www.extheramedical.com) indicates their product (the “Seraph® Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter”) is very similar to Aethlon’s Hemopurifier. Plus, ExThera Medical is involved with DARPA, Battelle and sepsis treatment (as is Aethlon).
Any thoughts/comments regarding these two questions?
Question 1: What’s the difference between Aehtlon’s and ExThera’s products?
Question 2: How soon does Aethlon’s patent protection expire on their various patents?
Article ref Dr Robert Stern
Just saw this article in yesterday's Washington Post. Does this Dr Robert Stern have any connection to AEMD or Exosome Science? I vaguely recall his name in previous communications, but can't find the link.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-amateur-football-hits-linked-to-later-life-difficulty/2016/03/31/2007c064-f76b-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_story.html
Or Google:
"Study: Amateur football hits linked to later-life difficulty" . . .
AEMD presentations at investor conferences over the years have produced zero results . . . so why not stop doing them and save the expenses/operation costs borne by the shareholders?
I’m a long-time AEMD “long”. I started accumulating AEMD shares in 2006. I’ve never sold a single share and was a big believer in Mr Joyce and the ultimate success of AEMD. Events of the last year have turned me pretty cynical.
I offer the following for comment, reasons for agreement, reasons for disagreement, or suggestions for other alternatives: Mr Joyce and various representatives from AEMD have traveled to and presented at numerous investor and medical/science conferences over the years. Going back as far as 2000, I estimate they averaged at least three per year. That’s at least 48 conferences. Plot those dates on a graph and place AEMD’s share price next to it. In all my years owning and watching AEMD, I’ve never witnessed any type of share price bump as a result of a conference presentation. I may be wrong, but I encourage anyone to show me the data to refute it.
Here’s my point: Why does AEMD continue to incur the travel, lodging, meal, etc, expenses when they produce zero results? (Is anyone aware what these cost figures actually are, say for example, AEMD’s last full fiscal year?) Could it be that these conferences are an opportunity for company officials, and sometimes their family members, to take a nice vacation at the expense of the company/shareholders? That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. If the conference is local, i.e. in the San Diego area, it’s probably no big deal. But I think I recall many of these being in places like San Francisco, New York and Las Vegas. Mr Joyce is already generously rewarded with his annual compensation from AEMD. Are we shareholders also funding his vacation travel?
Very frustrated and venting now . . . thanks for listening. I welcome any other perspective on this issue.
glasanderson
Newsmax.com website just published article about CTE/Tausome and Exomsome Science, Inc.
An extract from the article says, "The new test was developed by Exosome Sciences Inc., in collaboration with Aethlon Medical Inc. and investigators at Boston University and the University of Washington who have been studying CTE in former NFL players and other athletes."
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Brain-Health/cte-concussion-nfl-brain/2016/02/29/id/716689/
dp,
I appreciate you timely, well thought-out reply.
I'm just venting my frustrations as a long-time (2006) investor with AEMD who has never sold a share because I kept believing in AEMD's future.
Your points are probably most valid in the context of the last six to twelve month time period, but it doesn't help explain where the company has been and what they've been doing for the last fifteen years!
If indeed us individual investors are mucking up the water with our independent proactive activities, then AEMD leadership ought to do a better job keeping us informed of what they are doing.
Still looking for an explanation as to what value/service these other three executives do to earn their compensation.
What about the doctors and scientists on the advisory board? Are they compensated.
Thanks for letting me vent . . . I feel much better now.
glasanderson
What are the rest of the AEMD team members doing?
Reading the iHub and IV posting for the last several months, I am impressed with all the investors’/posters’ initiatives and attempts to communicate with the various Federal agencies and scientific/medical community regarding Aethlon and the Hemopurifer.
Most of the board discussions revolve around what “JJ” is, or is not, doing. Then it dawned on me: “Doesn’t AEMD also have executive level staff that should be helping JJ carry on the fight and spread the good word about the Hemopurifier?”
Below is Yahoo Finance’s list AEMD’s “key executives” (Kenley, Frakes & Tullis) and their yearly compensation. Also listed below are the doctors and scientists on AEMD Scientific Advisory Board per AEMD’s website. (I’m not aware of their compensation.)
What are all these other team members doing to help the cause? Why does it appear that AEMD’s small-time investors are knocking themselves out in an attempt to get the scientific, medical and government communities to notice the Hemopurifier? Isn’t that something JJ’s well compensated staff should be doing for him and the company?
I appreciate any thoughts or insights anyone may have.
glasanderson
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Mr. Rodney S. Kenley , Pres and Director, $240,000
Mr. James B. Frakes , Chief Financial Officer and Sr. VP of Fin., $183,000
Dr. Richard H. Tullis Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer, Sr. VP and Director; $195,000
The AEMD website currently lists the following members of its “Scientific Advisory Board’
Gregory T. A. Kovacs, M.D., Ph.D.
John A. Kellum, M.D.
Nathan W. Levin, M.D.
Claudio Ronco, M.D.
David M. Ward, M.D.
Stephen Z. Fadem, M.D.
Irshad H. Chaudry, Ph.D.
Larry D. Cowgill, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Charles J. Fisher, Jr., M.D.
Geert Schmid-Schönbein, Ph.D.
Laszlo Radvanyi, Ph.D.
Anyone heard from Hennassoc lately?
To all the long-time longs: When we see or hear that Hennassoc is back in AEMD, it’ll be, “Katie, bar the door!”
“Hennassoc” was a frequent contributor to AEMD’s message board at Yahoo Finance for many years. Unfortunately, he said good-bye a few years back with a very thoughtful message and noted he had just sold all his AEMD shares (I think it was around $0.12/share). I really liked him; he always had level-headed analysis of the situation.
glasanderson
Not sure who's selling, but at 10:27 this morning I bought an additional 70,000 shares @ $.16. It's strange how none of the tickers are showing at least $.16 as the daily high so far.
Anyone heard from Hennassoc?
Any of the long-term AEMD holders heard from “Hennassoc” lately? He was a frequent contributor to AEMD’s message board at Yahoo Finance for many years. However, he said good-bye about a year or so ago with a very thoughtful message and noted he had just sold all his AEMD shares (I think it was around $0.12/share).
I really liked Hennassoc; he always had level-headed analysis of the situation. I wonder if he’s still following AEMD and if he’s tempted to jump back in now?
glasanderson
Keeping it civil from another longtime “Long”
60; Woodbridge (almost Quantico), VA
Retired Army; http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011305279879
First became intrigued by Aethlon Medical and the Hemopurifier when I read an article about them in the Army Times back in 2006 or 2005. Since then, I’ve accumulated 546,000 shares at an average share price of $0.18. (Do the math!) I’m “all in”, . . . will be either a “hero” or “zero”. I’ve stayed this long, . . . I plan on either losing it all if the company eventually fails, or if successful will probably sell half my shares around $1.00 and let the other half ride to see where it goes from there.
I too have followed (silently) AEMD on the Yahoo Finance message board over the years and now almost exclusively follow you guys here on Investorshub. I’ve developed a pretty good feel for who the longtime, legitimate longs are who have a sincere and genuine interest in following Aethlon’s progress. Let’s not ruin a good thing. 26 years in the Army taught me the synergy of teamwork.