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.
Farrell,
"They both had animal hosts which Covid 19 may or may not have."
You may find this article of interest. The study notes the deer mouse is the most studied and abundant mammal in North America. Something to keep an eye on.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7418741/
Well I guess Leo could have said that. Why reference antifungals if you want to take on HIV? Regarding HIV,I think Leo will keep the antiviral capabilities of B for himself.
BTW, the PR is a good thing in my view. It appears to validate the continued collaboration on some anti fungal work started a ways back that may come to fruition at some point in the future. As Old Prof pointed out, fungal infections are nasty and we need some new weapons against them.
I doubt this PR has anything to do with B.The Polyheist included several compounds, some of which were slated for development as anti-fungals and also a drug discovery platform. My interpretation from the wording of the original collaboration PR with Fox Chase, posted by Ferdinand the bull, is that it was for the investigation of anti-fungals via the platform. This PR appears to be another step in that direction as it relates to "anti-fungal drug discovery". No mention of B in either PR.
Nasty I guess. Even if you don't want to read the articles the titles should scare the bejesus out of you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7197630/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.205229v1
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20154260v1
This article takes a look at a pet peeve of many: the byzantine clinical trials process. I am gratified the FDA is looking at this. Anyone who was here through the endless Kevetrin trial can appreciate that something needs to change.
There are some interesting ideas presented here although in very rudimentary form. I hope the effort to reform the process continues and results in meaningful change.
https://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/regulatory-science-clinical-research-where-do-we-stand-and-where-are-we-going-0001
This article is about a concern discussed on the board by several posters over the past few days. The issue is really one of industrial policy, especially that of international outsourcing. That is a huge topic and I won't go into it here except to say that manufacturing costs in the US are not going to match what is available overseas. My guess is pharmaceutical companies will not like the notion.
https://www.biospace.com/article/can-and-should-pharma-manufacturing-heed-calls-to-come-home-/
I have been poking around and found three very interesting articles. The first is included here with the others to follow in subsequent posts.
The first article indicates to me Leo is trying hard to meet very difficult hurdles in order to be included in a subset of antivirals the FDA will consider for end of the year decision-making and funding. The FDA is prioritizing drugs that can be ready by year end. It appears not many will make it. The approach favors existing approved drugs that are repurposed like Remdesivir. Leo's emphasis on drug manufacturing is paramount as explained in the article. Also noteworthy is the idea that antivirals anywhere in the life cycle of a virus (I know viruses are not alive) are being considered, i.e., prophylactics etc.
Karin has it. It is a sticky.
An intriguing question. One way to calculate SI is CC50/EC50 although IC50 can also be used. I am pretty sure Leo knows the CC50 figure. Why? The 10th slide of the corporate update gave a hint. It said "These 2 efficacious concentrations are non-cytotoxic to lung cells. Brilacidin CC50 many times higher.
I find it interesting that slide is no longer available on the corporate website and has been replaced with a less revealing (in terms of CC50) slide. I recalled the info above and was able to look it up in Karin's posts because she captured some of the slides right after they came out and #10 was one she archived. Thanks Karin.
So, if you have followed this so far , I think the statement on the original slide #10 is a good indication Leo knows the CC50. One can only speculate as to why the original slide #10 was removed but maybe, on second thought, Leo felt it revealed too much at that point in time.
As far as the EC50 is concerned, you have to go back and look at the Eureka Alert, which gave additional info not seen elsewhere. One piece of that info: "As part of this project, Naryanan will first determine the EC50 values, or the concentration of the drug that gives a full maximal response."
You will recall the research began in May 2020 and will conclude in late August 2020. The words 'first determine' may be interpreted as the first thing she was going to work on. If so, and if the research began in May 2020, suggests to me the value has been determined by now.
Dr. Jerry said as much. I agree. I think the SI is known. The fact Leo went to some lengths to highlight it in the last PR leads me to speculate it a high value, i.e., a favorable value vis a vis the values of some competing drugs.
Like following breadcrumbs. Each can determine for themselves whether they find the logic specious or compelling.
The CYDY take down today does bring back memories. Probably a good chance it isn't over. In the fallout, there was an SA article published which noted all the reasons the stock still has good prospects. The article includes a brief look at some competitors in the Covid space, including IPIX. Not too impressed with the author's research as he "presumes" the 97% reduction in the IPIX results was in vitro. Well, all he had to do was actually read it. Anyway, it is linked here so you can see what was said about IPIX.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4355694-dont-forget-cytodyns-prospects
A little frustrated with that coordinated take down at the end of the day. So, even though I am not sure I have the technique down I will try. Puckering my lips. Okay, here goes : I spit in the river.
Thanks FrenchBroad. I feel better.
Whew! What a day, what a week, what a month. Not long ago I posted I was a longtime bag holder hoping something in my bag would turn to gold. I have more than doubled my position since then with buys at .12, .15, .16 x2, .188, and .48 and .49, both today. Still under but close. Another day like today and I am green. Years in the making but who's counting. Go IPIX!
Thank you for posting that article. I tend to agree with the premise and suspect vaccines will underwhelm. A great read with some surprises like:
Dr.Jerry, Your intention was good but you might want to send another email to fix an error in your message. The data received this past week was from a human lung epithelial cell line, not from a monkey cell line. It makes a difference.
I see your point but B is still a therapeutic, even though it can act prophylactically too. The ultimate prophylaxis is a vaccine and they are pouring money into them, not ruling them out as a pre-infection prophylaxsis. B can be given to an infected hospitalized patient and help them ( at least in theory). That is what a trial will determine hence the need for funding of a trial.
No impact IMO. Here is the wording of the actual notice from BARDA which makes clear therapeutics are still in the game (see AOI 9.2). It also notes what is no longer desired near the end. We are good to go!
We appreciate your interest in partnering with BARDA. Due to the COVID-19 response, any white papers or full proposals submissions, other than those that are in support of COVID-19, will be put into a queue. Once the response to COVID-19 has subsided, we will resume normal review of submissions for other research areas of interest. BARDA will not be able to meet the timelines highlighted in the Broad Agency Announcement. Thank you for understanding this unprecedented response and delays that will occur.
The latest BARDA Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is amendment 17 posted on June 3, 2020.
Note: COVID-19 response related Areas of Interest includes:
AOI 7.7.1 Diagnostic assay for human coronavirus using existing FDA-cleared platforms
AOI 7.7.2 Point-of-care diagnostic assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus
AOI 7.7.3 Diagnostic assay for detection of COVID-19 disease (SARS-CoV-2 infection), Including Serology Tests
[NEW] AOI 7.7.4 Diagnostic Assay for SARS-CoV-2 as part of FDA-cleared panel for influenza and other respiratory viruses using FDA-cleared platforms
AOI 8.3 COVID-19 Vaccine
AOI 9.2 COVID-19 Therapeutics
AOI 10 Respiratory protective devices
AOI 17 Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
All contracting related inquiries should be sent to BARDA-BAA@hhs.gov. BARDA suspended AOI 9.3 immunomodulators or therapeutics targeting lung repair, suspended AOI 9.5 Pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis, suspended AOI 11 Ventilators, revised language for AOI 3 Antibacterials (submissions are placed in post COVID-19 review queue), added AOI 7.7.4, and revised language for AOI 9.2, 9.3, 9.5. BARDA will continuously review and expedite COVID-19 response related white papers and full proposals. Offeror should also complete the Submission Data Integration Table.
The final white paper submission deadline is October 31, 2020. The final full proposal submission deadline is October 31, 2020 or as specified in the invitation letter.
To develop an approved antiviral drug is a rare feat. There have only been 90 approved from 1959 through 2016, with possibly a few additional added to present. Of those 90, 11 have been discontinued, leaving 79 approved and still in use. Some of these are combination treatments, using 2, 3 or even 4 of the approved drugs.
Of the remaining 79 antiviral drugs, 38 are for treatment of HIV, leaving 41 antiviral treatments for all the other viruses that infect humans, of which there are around 220.
The approx. 220 viruses that infect humans do not include variants. For example, influenza alone has 4 types, many sub-types and strains, numbering over 200 kinds of viral infections that we know about. But it continues to mutate so the list grows. Type A flu is particularly dangerous and is capable of causing pandemics.
With all that viral complexity, through 2016 the approved antiviral medicines targeted only 9 infectious human diseases: HIV, HCV, HSV, HCMV, HPV, RSV, VZV, and influenza from seven viral families. The world is now laser focused on adding another viral family to that list: the coronaviridae.
Viruses are controlled in some cases by vaccines. In some cases, disease is controlled by both a vaccine and an antiviral. But for many diseases there is neither a vaccine or an antiviral. There is a long way to go and B is right in the thick of trying to improve our prospects of winning the battle against viruses.
Most of the info cited and more is in the linked article. It starts with photos of the authors and there is a strange zodiac chart for showing the timing of drug development by time and type. Maybe our resident astrologer will enjoy looking at that but I found it a little funky.
There is a long section of the article that examines the mechanisms of action of the antivirals, of which there are 12 kinds with a nod to a 13th which is for drugs of an immunomodulatory or antimitotic nature. These immunomodulatory drugs are very important as slcimmuno has pointed out and the article he attached to his post is a good read. IMO our approach to the virus so far has been imbalanced.
B has multiple mechanisms of action, including immunomodulatory. But guess what? They need to add a new category because the article does not include one for blowing up the viral coat. B is special.
https://cmr.asm.org/content/29/3/695/figures-only
Do you have the rare album cover for the vinyl or the regular one?
I noticed a number of music videos posted lately and decided to post one for TIAB. It is not meant to be mean as I remember him from long ago as a solid long. Plus he posted a bit of a mea culpa today. And to tell the truth I found the Coyote and Lonely Planet posts somewhat clever but everything has its limits and TIAB, well he pushed those limits.
It is a great video with 3 renowned musicians and song writers. Winwood was a teenage prodigy when he joined Spencer Davis Group. And that is Slowhand next to him. If you don't know about Trucks, Rolling Stone rates him the 16th best guitarist of all time. You might have to hit the button to skip an ad to get to the good stuff.
After today maybe TIAB will find his way home.
Thanks for the article Farrell. I do think B will get a shot at the flu but not sure when.
I had a friend who nearly died of encephalitis, herpes though. Many neurologic sequelae. Limp, uses a cane now etc. Scary.
slcimmuno, Thank you for those articles. They affirm the special niche B, as a defensin mimetic, occupies in the universe of approaches being tried for viral infection. The last article is particularly apropos to the approach I was focused on in my post, namely, the destruction of the viral envelope.
I focused on the viral envelope because of the susceptibility of the binding sites to mutation. While computer modelling identified B as having high potential affinity to the main protease binding site, there is some concern that site is especially susceptible to mutation. I previously posted this so you may have already seen it:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.27.968008v1.full.pdf
A recent PR speculated the Spike Protein as another possible binding site for B so maybe that might buy some time from inevitable evolutionary change. The rate of mutation with Covid 19 appears to be low, at least so far. But it only takes the right (maybe wrong is better) mutation to mess things up for a particular treatment.
But the viral envelope is a different animal altogether. It is a weak link for viral adaptability.
Other B variables, especially bio-availablity and modulation of the inflammatory response need better definition. We know so little about them, the PRs providing minimal information so far. But the studies are underway to better define those areas.
B has unique properties that do not fit well into the various lists of drugs under study. You look at the lists and say no, it is not one of those and no, it is not one of those either. There is nothing else like it and, as such, is underappreciated. But step by step it moves forward and those properties come into focus. So far so good.
Yes Pete the main plot was the focus on advancing B in the fight against Covid 19. But the intriguing subplot was the advancement of B as a broad spectrum antiviral.
The Toga virus family, genus alpha, includes Eastern Equine Encephalitis, Western Equine Encephalitis, Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis and Chikungunya. As you mentioned, the Filo family includes Ebola and Marburg, both hemorrhagic fevers. These are nasty viruses and outbreaks are hard to contain. Some have high mortality rates. Fortunately, they are rare.
We know Leo has teamed up with a researcher at GMU who has expertise with Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis virus. So I think Leo is being opportunistic and trying to position B as best he can at low cost.
All of the aforementioned viruses are RNA viruses and have viral envelopes. It is interesting that enveloped virus are actually more fragile that non-enveloped viruses as long as you can disrupt the lipo-protein coat and avoid toxicity. All indications are that B is adept at that so other enveloped virus may be future targets. The Orthomyxo viruses (influenza) are RNA and enveloped viruses. Also, the Corona virus family of Covid 19 fame includes the common cold, again an RNA virus with a viral envelope.
Just sayin'.
Thank you for the clarification on that Minnesinger. I am sure she is quite capable, despite the lower rank. All the Associates were Assistants at some point.
She also has a background in VEEV, referenced in the March 12 PR. That helps explain that to me because I did not expect an equine encephalitis virus to be part of this. Not sure if VEEV is still the plan or not. Maybe we will know soon.
The essence of the 4/27 PR and the EurekaAlert are similar although the wording of the EurekaAlert is original, not a cut and paste. The IPIX PR also alludes to the previous research on the monkey cell line, which seems to indicate that work having been done at GMU.
Of more interest to me is what is new, namely, the name of the institution, the name of the researcher, the amount of the funding for the research ($35 K), the timing of funding for the research and the fact there is confusion over the rank of the professor.
On this last point, post #3000122 by zandant references other research by the same professor but in all 3 instances linked the researcher is listed as an Associate Professor, not an Assistant Professor. Only the EurekaAlert said the professor was an Assistant Professor, which concerned me a bit. The Assistant/Associate rank is an important distinction, as the Associate rank connotes the additional publications and prestige of an advanced academic career. Given the other sources, I believe EurekaAlert is likely in error on the rank of the professor.
I, like you, do not know how EurekaAlert was able to secure the additional detail which we had not seen before. One could speculate but that is all it would be.
Some of you may find this chart interesting. It is not complete as we know it has not been updated to reflect the new corona virus causing havoc all over the world. But it does include many of the most troublesome scourges of mankind.
There is a key of symbols. Two were of particular interest to me: those that have a vaccine as indicated by the syringe and those that are enveloped viruses as indicated by the little envelope. One could hope that B could disrupt some of the other enveloped viruses for which there is no vaccine.
It is interesting to see the split between the DNA and RNA viruses too. Trouble comes in many forms from these little buggers that, as LK noted, hang around the boundary between living and non-living. If you click directly on the chart it will enlarge it.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/viruses-and-vaccines-a-basic-flowchart-of-viral-families
I pointed out the same discrepancy (M vs. S) to the company with no response either. Like you I await better definition of the mechanism of action from future studies.
Farrell, JFM: thanks for the information you forwarded. I agree with the multiple mechanisms of action. There was an assertion B could bind the S protein and I was hoping it was true as that would provide another mechanism of action.I still have seen no evidence of that but share your enthusiasm regarding inhibiting Mpro and disrupting the viral coat.
GreenBio, I have not been able to find anything that definitively states B can bind to the S protein and the ACE2 pathway, just the Mpro. I have seen speculation and a little confusing information but nothing more. I would be very interested in a link if you have one. Thanks.
I have been thinking about the main protease binding site and the issue of mutability.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.27.968008v1.full.pdf
Here is my thinking:
1) B is an antiviral candidate although it may prove useful as an adjuvant as well. A vaccine will limit the usefulness of B for Covid 19 in the future so the mutability of Mpro may be a moot point.
2)The spike protein mutates as well. Recent reports point out the emergence of a more dangerous strain from a spike protein mutation. So it is hard to make a case the spike is a more attractive target. The spike is used for cellular attachment so there is appeal if you prevent attachment. But Mpro provides many opportunities to wreak havoc on the virus, including the lipid coat.
3) The complete picture is hard to fathom given the modulatory and antibacterial effects of B.
Bottom line, we do not know if mutability will require reformulation of a vaccine on annual basis, much like the flu. Likewise, over time the effectiveness of antiviral treatments is subject to the same variable.
Long time bag holder here hoping what is in my bag turns to gold.
I looked at the PR and liked what I saw. Some feel it is not much different than last PR but it is very different. The RBL study bathed B onto monkey cells with subsequent reduction of the viral load.
This PR highlights a study using computer modeling of the structure of a huge library of drugs to screen for best candidates for binding with the structure of Covid 19. According to the screening B was one of about 30 drugs out of 11,552 with the structure to pull this off with Covid, which confirms the RBL research as a drug of promise. Think of it this way: if you send a ship to the international space station and the docking mechanism on your ship doesn't match the one on the station you are out of luck. Same with drugs and Covid.
There were 3 possible binding sites mentioned in the paper. The PR from Leo only shows the table for the one where B was a match but there were two more. By my count there were 12 drugs highlighted in the group B was in, 14 in one of the others (although only 11 in the table) and 6 in the Spike Protein site (no table in the paper).
Once a drug is bound to the virus many different types of interactions can occur. So binding is important but, once bound, the efficacy of the interaction is paramount. Efficacy is also dependent on toxicity (side effects). Taking all this into account this interaction, a cascade of chemical reactions, will determine the winner of the Covid sweepstakes.
The paper identified the best drugs on the basis of binding but we will have to wait to see how B does with efficacy. The RBL monkey cell data was encouraging in that regard. The upcoming RBL human lung cell study is the next step.
B has the advantage of multiple effects that may prove beneficial. It is an immunomodulator and can hopefully stop the cytokine storm that has killed so many. There is some great information on the IPIX website about the immunomodulatory potential of B. And it can also latch onto many types of bacteria responsible for secondary infection. So it may kill more than one bird with one stone.
Some feel B should be in Covid human trials by now but I think it is understandable from a safety standpoint that already approved FDA drugs showing promise would get first crack at that. As noted in this study of the 3 binding sites, B's group had 3 drugs with FDA approval and there was 1 each in the other two groups for 5 total that have FDA approval. Of course, none of these drugs are approved for Covid but the argument and risk of repurposing them is stronger than it is for a drug with no FDA approval.
That said, time will prove which drug is best. Hope B is a winner.
slcimmuno, Thank you for this amazing post. I used to post and my focus was mostly science oriented. I gave it up awhile ago but am still long IPIX. But I could not help myself and had to comment on this post. The charts you attached are jaw dropping. I used to look at some of the chemical cascades linked to IPIX drugs but the pathways were much more local. To see this expanded view is mind blowing. Every plant and animal is a miracle. The closer you look the more the wonder grows....
Following the initial release of data for the B UP phase 2 there were posters who stated there was no indication of a dose dependent response. Their assertion was based on the Primary Efficacy endpoint of Clinical Remission where both Cohort A and Cohort B had similar results (both cohorts reporting 3/6 patients as having met this endpoint).
The study is based on small numbers, not powered for statistical significance and was set up for proof of concept. With those caveats in mind, when examining the efficacy data for the secondary endpoints there are hints of a dose dependent response. The Full MMDAI data indicates a 50-75% reduction in 2 patients in cohort A and in 4 patients in Cohort B. In the Partial MMDAI there was a 50-83% reduction in 2 patients in Cohort A and 3 Patients in Cohort B. In the Patient Quality of Life Measure, 3 of 6 patients reported significant improvements while in cohort B 5 of 6 patients did.
To me these results do not establish a solid basis for saying there is dose dependent response. But I sure like the direction the results are pointing rather than no divergence between the results of the two groups. It will bear watching if the results of these measures diverge even more when the results of Cohort 3 are reported.
Really enjoyed the blog posts today. PT's blog had me chuckling about a legacy mess I was involved with about 15 years ago. The hospital had a financial system that was antiquated and we faced the difficult decision of a "rip and replace". The biggest fear was the way the system had been customized by the hospital IT folks over the years to meet our unique needs, something mentioned by PT.
A couple of years of planning preceded the change including, when finally near implementation, running the old system and the new system in parallel for a couple of months. Despite all of the preparation there were huge problems when the old system was finally shut off and the new system became the only system. There were major backups at every clinic site as staff, despite an extensive training effort, bogged down at their terminals trying to use the new system. Lines of patients formed, complaints from everywhere. In addition, several of my departments experienced issues that required workarounds. All of this despite an extensive effort where every department met for months with IT to plan for the change. The glitches were so problematic, the two IT folks most involved with the effort and who, up to then were viewed as very competent people, lost their jobs.
Then there was Radiology. When the next financial report came out, $2.2 million in Radiology revenue that had been on the reports for months disappeared. No one in Radiology, IT, or Finance could figure out where it went.
There was an IT guy ready to retire who agreed to stay on. He moved into my office suite with one job: find the missing revenue.
After 6 months of investigation we met and he gave me his report. Essentially, the revenue went down a "hole" in the software and I guess out into the universe somewhere. It was caused by one line of code out of millions. The hole was patched and the revenue reinstated. But for all those months before we knew, we had to prepare variance reports to explain why we were short, which was not fun.
Rip and replace is a tough way to go. I wish we had Glassware back then. ANY's solution would have prevented upheaval and saved a couple people their jobs. By the way, one of the people who was fired became a stock broker.
Hey Mac, I have been in the South Pacific where communication was spotty and am just now catching up with all that has occurred with the SP etc. I do not have private messaging so I will address your questions as best as I am able here.
Our contractual radiology refreshes were not annual - they were usually a one time provision of a purchase contract or sometimes as separate purchases on older systems we were keeping that had already under gone a contractual refresh. A purchase affords the buying entity some leverage to include such language as protection against an upgrade that will make the system obsolete too soon after purchase. Upgrades of these systems are not like Adobe upgrades - they are rarer and the purchasing entity is likely to live with the system for a few years.
It would be too disruptive to do refreshes annually as it requires some down time (or at least slow down)and retraining of staff. A stand alone (as in not part of a system purchase contract) refresh is also done but you might go 5 years before doing so and it has to be considered as an option against a backdrop of the rapid evolution that is always occurring in imaging, the specific advantages linked to the refresh and the expense of paying for a refresh that is not part of a contract versus just getting a whole new system. Sometimes the value is not deemed worth the trouble. For example, I have seen instances where one or more refreshes were skipped and then picked up when the following refresh comes along. So things vary quite a bit.
While a refresh may be software-based, there are other things that affect it, e.g, a hardware-based upgrade such as new workstations, or a more sizeable hardware upgrade (aka a "fork-lift" upgrade of some of the imaging systems). These considerations influence when a software refresh occurs. Most dramatic is the purchase of a whole new system which then affords the purchaser the opportunity to leverage a refresh into the language of the contract as noted above.
It is hard to know exactly how the Novarad refresh will go. It will start with each institution being assessed as to where they stand (their current version of software, their equipment, mobile and offsite requirements etc.). Also, what size workload can Novarad and Sphere handle in a given period as staffing will play a role with over 400 sites on the table.
While this refresh looks relatively straightforward it probably is not as simple as it appears. Novarad likely wanted to enhance other aspects of their software that have little to do with Glassware and so the retraining etc. is likely more than just Glassware education. Also, some institutions may need storage enhancements and will want to look at the integrated solutions Sphere offers, which is a good thing but not part of the refresh per se and may involve a separate bid process.
It is hard to get more specific than that but I will say that there are some thorny issues that will make this refresh very attractive to the institutions. Patients flow between healthcare systems and take their medical records with them. Digital imaging studies are not as easily transferred as paper records. I can't tell you how many times the docs complained about this as they cannot get the disparate systems to work together.
Imagine patients walking in with a disk of their imaging studies from another institution but they do not come up on your system. The old days of Apple and Microsoft writ large. There are huge liability issues here - do you reimage the patient (often with associated risks of contrast reactions and more that I won't go into here)and if you do what has changed since the unreadable study was taken? This happens all the time and is a huge problem. Especially since the transfers to another institution often involve serious, time sensitive healthcare issues. The practice of medicine is greatly hampered if Radiology (and Pathology) results are unavailable.
The other big advantage is the ability to get this imaging information on different devices and in a variety of settings. We coped with this pretty well at my old hospital but to do so all devices (phones, at-home computers) were provided by and set up and maintained by the hospital at considerable IT expense. Glassware will improve this situation although the HIPPA issues remain and will have to be managed.
Hope this helps some. Seems the board moved away from here while I was away.
Ahagelthorpe, I tried to link directly to the table in SEDI that shows the acquisitions and dispositions of equity and post it but when I tested it I ended up on the SEDI start page.
So here is what I can tell you: I just used Lucror's link in post #29108 to get to the site (start page). Then you have to figure a few things out. One thing I discovered was the Issuer Number for S3D is 00029936. It is also useful to know they are identified under the classification of "Industrial products - technology - software. You probably will have to enter S3D's proper name = Sphere 3D Corp. You have to get it right. I sorted by the Insider Transaction detail. That is about all I can remember as I had several stops and restarts to figure out the above items were the choices I needed to finally get there.
The path could be easier but if you fiddle around and use the above info I think you will find it. Good Luck!
Tamtam - it is there. Just follow the link provided by Lucror. It still is a stumble around process but I finally found it. So yes, Mario Biasini did dispose of 442,750 shares on 6/25. However, on the same date Eric Kelly added 961,500 shares. So Kelly may have had a deal with Biasini but piicked up about 520,000 more on the plus side to boot. I think Eric has a pretty good idea of why he might want to do that!
This Smith on Stocks article makes my skin crawl. I have been looking over the fine print in my accounts and so far have no problem with 2 of the 3 brokerages I use (Fidelity and Vanguard). I am not so enamored of the wording I found in the fine print of my Schwab Options Express account even though it is an IRA account:
Custody of Securities - Fully paid securities held by us for you, but which are not registered in your name, may be commingled with identical securities being held by other clients by us, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, or similar depositories. Securities held for accounts of customers with outstanding obligations, or deposited to secure the same, may from time to time, and without notice to such customer, be commingled with securities of other customers and used by us to pledge or re-pledge, hypothecate or re-hypothecate, or loan or deliver on contracts for other customers without our having in possession and control for delivery a like amount of similar securities.
A key point here is whether securities are held in Street name or registered to you. Here is some info on what that means:
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/holdsec.htm
I will be discussing this with Schwab on Monday as I suspect this account is in Street Name. If so, I will switch it to Registered and, if not 100% sure the shares cannot be loaned will move the account. If I elect to do so I would like to think Schwab will then hypothecate or even re-hypothecate as to why I would do such a thing.
Pipi - Thanks (I guess) for that appalling information. Smith on Stocks is a guy I respect and he was a Wall Street guy so I suspect he has plumbed the depths of this sickening naked short situation pretty thoroughly. All longs need to read this article as it illuminates the true depths of what looks like nothing short of massive and unfortunately, condoned fraud.
It is a long but thorough treatment of this unsavory topic and illustrates why any reported number of short shares is worthless and likely much higher than any on this board have even mentioned. My shares are in IRA accounts and supposedly protected although the article made clear that may not be the case as IRA shares have also been lent out.
There is only one way to fix this and it seems to repeatedly fail due to campaign contributions to the law makers of both major parties. Wall Street ethics reform is an oxymoron. I have read about the high number of psychopathic personalities on Wall Street and it is easy to imagine no guilt involved on their part from these illegal activities of fleecing companies and their investors out of their monies.
An amazing wake up call and must read for all. Thanks again Pipi.
I don't see it that way. Crosby's response was a non-sequitur, i.e., the point he was responding to had little to do with Crosby's response. Joy was talking about whether you could hack something containerized within Glassware. Crosby drifted off track to what users do within a system. Totally different. Yeah, if the system has something bad in it bad things can happen but that is different than someone from outside the system getting into it and making bad things happen. That is how I read it.
Ha! You are right - that is old and unrelated and dare I say incomprehensible. But look at page 8 of Coma's attachment, which has nothing to do with yours. That seems right up our alley. DDN and their case study (named S3D) for storage. Storage that seems to mimic many capabilities of ours, at least in capacity. And didn't we just hear form Peter that no one is even close? How did DDN become such a hot shot so quick in terms of capability? Anything to do with their case study named S3D? Might this be Hugomongous?
Coma - I like the other connection you noted with the link to the big boy. Who knows if that will lead to something. Certainly cannot hurt.