Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I've tried that, repeatedly. It doesn't work. So far!
Whether it serves some purpose or not, in my opinion, "Market Making" should be illegal, yet it is not only legal, it is a listing requirement that companies have dedicated "Market Makers". In my opinion, it is blatantly obvious that "Market Making" should be illegal. An elephant in the room.
Maybe the article was not intended, in itself, to have any significant impact. For impact, it would be released on a Monday morning. Instead it might serve as something for one or all of the Three Stooges to point to upon NWBO announcing submission of their regulatory doc. Remember Crammer talking about the hedge fund tactic of circulating false negatives to escape a failing short position? This is that, in advance, but I don't think it will work this time. In the middle of this serious court case, the big dogs, including Crammer et al, are not going to rollover on cue. It is too transparent and there is currently too much light. That leaves just the drooling retail shorts to jump when AF points to that bash article after the regulatory submission is announced, and I don't think the retail shorts will have much impact. I think that all along their have only been a few of them and the real shorting has been the dark shorting which is now frozen in it's tracks. Those retail bashers posting on the blogs are just a front. AF is going to get buried in the pyroclastic flow that follows the regulatory submission PR and immortalized as a stone turd. Thesis my ass.
Admin(s) please erase my post # 1170. I don't think the issues were the fault of B. Riley or ASCO... . Maybe, but it is unclear and not worth having the negativity there for posterity.
Wow! What just happened? I think CTXR just bought itself for $750M. Given that it had only a $107M market cap, I think that is a pretty neat trick. Actually, it bought 90% of itself for $675M. What happened to the other 10%. Is this just a 10% dilution, or is this a 10% dilution where somebody gets skewered by a factor of (750/107 )/.9 = 7.8X. Now who would that be that would get skewered (if anyone)? CTXR is held; 7.8% by Insiders, 10.7% by Institutions, so I assume about 81.5% by Retail Investors. Must be the Institutional Investors and Insiders that are getting skewered if anyone... right? That is how this works, right? SPAC's are used by non-public companies that want to go public. This time it is a public company changing it's name. New use of an SPAC? Changing it's name and probably f%$&g you in the a%##. Deep down you can feel it, can't you? Notice they said that the agreement had to be ratified by TenX but they didn't say anything about the CTXR investors having to vote on this. How could that be? Ouch! Deeper! Cut that out! You should have known that something was fishy when the 100% efficacious Mino-Lok trial that should have ended a very long time ago went silent for so long. You have to wonder if the BLA submission issues were deliberate to tank the price and give time to set this (skewering?) up. As a wealthy manager once said to me after I invented something valuable for the company and then asked for a promotion, "You (retail investors) are used to not having any money. You don't need money". They on the other hand are very very rich, so they need your money more than you need it. It's all good.
One of the elements of coordinated bashing is the posting of old to very old negative sounding news in Chrome search results for today's news. I don't know if Fierce Biotech and the other participants pay Google for this convenient error... (or whether the hedge funds pay it)... but this needs to be looked at. Recall that back when you (and I) were new here, there was a grand master for all this, a lead man who has now moved out of scrutiny. But let his history not be forgotten and let his present and recent past be scrutinized for less visible connections. And I am not talking about AF but rather a man with a much darker history including much clearer ties to hedge funds, including his own, and currently positioned at the highest pulpit in the land for retail manipulation.
Is Martin Shkreli in charge of Acadia, or some other cold psycho-bstrd? Shkreli was released to a half way house in May of last year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/martin-shkreli-released-from-federal-prison-into-halfway-house-.html#:~:text=Shkreli%20was%20arrested%20in%20late,that%20he%20had%20covered%20up.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/acadias-rare-disease-drug-to-cost-575-000-to-595-000-5e883843
https://news.sky.com/story/martin-shkreli-man-who-made-huge-profits-by-inflating-price-of-life-saving-drug-ordered-to-return-47m-12516161#:~:text=Data%20%26%20Forensics-,Martin%20Shkreli%3A%20Man%20who%20made%20huge%20profits%20by%20inflating%20price,rights%20to%20it%20in%202015.
Is Martin Shkreli in charge of Acadia, or some other cold psycho-bstrd? Shkreli was released to a half way house in May of last year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/martin-shkreli-released-from-federal-prison-into-halfway-house-.html#:~:text=Shkreli%20was%20arrested%20in%20late,that%20he%20had%20covered%20up.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/acadias-rare-disease-drug-to-cost-575-000-to-595-000-5e883843
https://news.sky.com/story/martin-shkreli-man-who-made-huge-profits-by-inflating-price-of-life-saving-drug-ordered-to-return-47m-12516161#:~:text=Data%20%26%20Forensics-,Martin%20Shkreli%3A%20Man%20who%20made%20huge%20profits%20by%20inflating%20price,rights%20to%20it%20in%202015.
Novo buying Google for $1 with Google to give Novo $1T worth of paintings including the Mona Lisa!. Deal to finalize on the 24th (Death Spiral Day).
In other news... the entire OS (Outstanding Shares) of Novo traded hands in seconds about a week ago and not one person on any message board mentioned it or speculated about just what the $* happened.
... B.Riley psswd is in immediate registration confirmation email. That may not be unusual, but the email subject line gives no indication that it contains a psswd. It gives a warm and fuzzy that your registration did go through, so the reader is not compelled to open the email. The reader already knows they registered and the reader does not yet know that they are going to have to login with a password. May be the usual way to do this, but I don't think it is a good way.
As for ASCO GI. Some say the abstracts were embargoed since late-breaking. Maybe so, but why then did the ASCO website instruct me to login to view the abstract. This is with the abstract already located. This is on the abstract page, which only contains the header at that point. Causes confusion.
B Riley would not allow me to view the recent webcast. ASCO would not allow me to view the recently "released: Abstracts. No PR from the company. This while Yhoo Finance is so controlled and filtered since the recent takeover that no light escapes there either.
If you had a similar experience, please message me and we can join forces for a complaint to the SEC.
More detail:
B Riley has no contact other than their private email system which does not work.
ASCO: Found the abstracts, but they told me that I had to log in to view the abstract beyond the header and authors. I spent 12 hours trying to do that. After many dead end phone calls and emails, I finally got them to allow me to log in. Went back to the abstract and now they tell me, you don't have access to the abstract. A slightly different message than when I was not logged in, but still no access.
I videotaped my efforts to access the webcast and abstracts. I suggest you do the same if you have problems like this in the future.
These are SEC violations.
Where is the SEC on these things? I suspect they could care less, but I want to find out.
Where did you go Sentiment? Lovely woman and sooo smart! My apology again Sentiment for my juvenile joke, referencing an old Dan Akroid-Jane Curtin SNL skit that you may be too young to have recognized. Sentiment is one of the most knowledgeable people on this message board and she has a heart of gold. My bad if anybody misunderstood my dumb joke or if her subsequent lack of posts has anything to do with that post exchange.
AVXL Price Target Raised to $80 by Jones Trading
(never heard of these guys but I like their attitude!)
https://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Anavex+Life+Sciences+%28AVXL%29+PT+Raised+to+%2480+at+Jones+Trading%2C+we+believe+Anavex+will+come+out+as+a+clear+M%26A+target/20925161.html
Hail Dr. Alexandre Vamvakides for inventing this wonderful drug and Dr. Christopher Missling for steering this ship so smoothly and confidently through rough waters full of pirates and scoundrels! You two owe each other.
I remember that price. That would have been before the R/S. I think it was 8X. Are you trying to make us feel bad?
Not sure if this is more like waiting for a major rocket launch or waiting for the civil war to start with two longs lines of soldiers standing about 20 feet from each other with rifles loaded and aimed. Maybe it's just me. I do have more ammo.
The article about the Reverse-Cramer ETFs assumes that Cramer's failures are random and not by design.
"First slide has to say: WE BELIEVE WE HAVE THE CURE FOR ALZHEIMERS"
A cure for Alzheimer's would certainly get approved and would value the stock at a minimum of $375/share over night. So anything short of that claim is a Yawn? That is ridiculous. Who you scamming? Not me buddy.
Simplest explanation for 371 P3 plans disappearing: 371 was the net, the Plan B. They no longer need a net, a Plan B.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03790709?term=NCT03790709&draw=2&rank=1 Just a link to the trial for anyone that does not have it.
To Scale Things: I don't pretend to know the results of this trial, but I do have some feel for the $magnitude of what is at stake. Not from projected sales if approved, but on the market valuation of an ALZ drug in the past. When Biogen announced the halting of their P3 for aducanumab for ALZ the first time around in March of 2019, the Biogen market cap dropped by $20B. I'm not saying good results in this trial are worth $20B... but that event with Biogen is saying that. Hooya lists AVXL's OS as 78M shares. I don't know if that is accurate, but even at 80M this Biogen collapse suggests the market could value good results as high as $20B/80M = $250/share. And Biogen's $20B market valuation of an ALZ drug was just the speculative value. So that suggests a market value of good results at much beyond $20B, an AVXL share price much beyond $250/share. I don't believe that is going to happen, but if it did, it would be consistent with this event at Biogen. One difference: I believe Biogen had at least two of three of the stooges as cheerleaders for that drug, even though that approach to ALZ had already failed in other trials. Wow. The hedge funds must have made a lot of money off of that very very unexpected collapse. Just like the collapse when the infamous single-bullet / limpit / cancer cure trial failed after being heavily cheer-leaded by the same two stooges as they beat down competing cancer cures (below Feuerstein's self proclaimed magic market cap threshold) with the help of their vast following of minions.
Nobody left holding AF's hand? JimmyC (I dont want to call him JC) distanced himself a tad too. Can't imagine why.
"I'm pretty sure that what you are saying is not true." I will take you word for that. Thanks for the correction. The purpose of my post was to point out a likely benign motive for AVXL to add ALZ to their list of indications that would be getting patient genetic screening in the future. The 10K with that change was PR'd the same time as the big dip, so it was suspect as part of the cause, or the cause of the dip. I wanted to address that possible misinterpretation of the reason for the change. I have been away from this stock for a while, and risk such errors in my posts. So thanks again for your correction and glad to hear that there is efficacy for that small subgroup as well as the larger group... and I see the importance of that if the trial is to be judged on the initial patient base, which of course it probably is.
"Not one word of what you said is true.".
https://seekingalpha.com/article/30257-jim-cramer-admits-to-stock-manipulation-when-at-hedge-fund
And be aware that the relationship between Cramer and Feuerstein was common knowledge 5 years ago.
"Very balanced..." Balanced my ass. 100 Transparent that this Edmund Ingham is a phony dude. In the one page article (legitimate Seeking Alpha articles are almost always much longer than that) he says "The decline in AVXL stock price after a fiscal Q422 earnings call in which management declined to discuss the data does not inspire confidence that results will be positive.". Edmund, Edmund Edmund.
They have already PR'd that they are announcing top line in an Oral Presentation at CTAD on Dec 1. Why would they announce that, and then go against that public statement and announce top line a few days early at the QReport? No company would do that. In fact most conference rules restrict the authors from revealing data early. This conference is probably the same. And the crooks that hired Edmund know that too. Pure stock manipulation. Illegal as hell. I think your a crook Edmund. (Edmund is not a poster on ihub and therefore not subject to it's protections regarding being polite, nor deserving thereof).
Ok. Good to hear.
The FDA set a precedent approving an ALZ drug with dubious efficacy, but asking for a confirmatory while the sponsor markets the drugs. In marketing and or in a confirmatory, Anavex would want to use DNA or RNA patient screening. They recently found that about 20% of patients are not good candidates for 273. Those patients deserve to know up front that they are not good candidates. Not ethical to sell to them. It's the right thing to do to let them move on. It also makes sense for a confirmatory even if not absolutely necessary. If Anavex did not state this up front, prior to a confirmatory, it would open them to criticism by the two Stooges. They stated it up front recently saying that any future trials will include this DNA or RNA patient screening, including any ALZ trials. It was apparently interpreted by some as foreshadowing of a failure. It might be, but more likely, in my opinion, it was stated for the reasons above.
Correction: I said "then use Cramer's famous escape tricks if the drug gets approved.". I should have said "then use Cramer's famous escape tricks if the drug gets approved and or along the path to approval if the company announces anything positive about the drug."
Adam Feuerstein is a sports columnist that studied under Jim Cramer in his transition to covering biotech. Feuerstein is credited with publishing an investment thesis that any Biotech with less than X market cap will fail to get FDA approval for their drug. He apparently defends this position by bad mouthing any biotech with a market cap below that stated in his "thesis". Jim Cramer, according to Jim Cramer, committed major crimes while running and or working in hedge funds before being put on a pedestal by CNBC. Those crimes were as follows: They would short a stock and then if the stock did not go under as they had expected, they would make up negative things about the company and spread those lies via key pathways, creating a temporary drop in share price that would provide the hedge fund's escape. Biotechs with drugs in trials are attractive to hedge funds because such a large percentage of drugs fail to get approval. Some of these hedge funds apparently short all small cap biotechs with drugs in trials, then use Cramer's famous escape tricks if the drug gets approved. Insane that such people live on this side of the prison walls. Far more insane for such types to be elevated to the highest pulpit in the land for manipulating investors with an array of Pavlovian tools (CNBC). Incredibly, even more insane to have a duo of such crooks controlling the pharma retail investor space. Proof that the SEC's primary function is to take down empires such as Martha Stewart's. This is a democracy. People need to take control of this country.
I found a couple other reasons that might explain the dip, and researched them, and they might not be real issues. More to say, but I should shut up.
At 8 Weeks!
Who cares what a drug does for Alz at 8 Weeks. Why bragging about 8 weeks? Was that the entire length of their P3? Or... does the data go to hell after that?
Years Till on the Market? No. There are competitors submitting for approval with only 8 weeks of data. So certainly the years of data AVXL has accumulated on 273 for ALZ will be enough for submittal... assuming the data is good. So that is 9 to 15 months to approval and with such slow side effects, quickly to market.
AVXL has 273 data for Alz going back years. If I were the FDA, I would want to see such data, not just 8 weeks of data (as some competitors are trying to get away with), if I were to consider approval. AVXL could have submitted with 8 weeks of data. The data was great! But they chose to do a longer term study, because it is common sense that the effect at 8 weeks may not represent the effect at a year or longer and the longer term effects are what really matters. I watched that in real time. Not talking in retrospect.
Re: "Only 400 in Aussie? That is embarrassing"... : That what I thought too when I read the post. Then I went to the link to find this list, and I didn't find the list. Anybody have a link to that list?
I need to read the post again, but if this interest is regarding private investors, then the fact that Anavex is not listed on the main (only?) Australian exchange might be a big factor. It's very difficult to invest in foreign exchanges.
https://www2.asx.com.au/markets/trade-our-cash-market/directory
Re: "Only 400 in Aussie? That is embarrassing"... : That what I thought too when I read the post. Then I went to the link to find this list, and I didn't find the list. Anybody have a link to that list?
Bear thesis blown. That LL had disassociated from NWBO. Apparently not.
SITC Oral Presentation on BOT w/wo BAL tomorrow with about a thousand authors. It is a brief presentation, but there are only 4 such on schedule and they are the last notes of the entire SITC session. It is likely that everybody at SITC who can get to these final presentations will be there. I am no technical expert in these matters, but I am confident that BOT is a big deal for a couple of reasons beyond the data. 1) In a brief presentation after ASCO, there were major league Cancer experts discussing the presented results. Those experts were truly impressed with this activity against cold tumors. I have seen phony looking presentations by small biotech companies, and this was not that. Of that I am certain and will listen to nobody else's opinion about it. 2) Agenus has been touting BOT for years now. They knew from the beginning that they had something very special. For me it is not a great leap of faith to expect big things from BOT w/wo BAL. No posts here in almost a year. None for months at alter forum IV, and alter other forum just went through a huge change. Suddenly no new posts in the last 24 hours in the middle of SITC? I don't thinks so. So far, I give the facelift at hooya a big thumbs down. This is it guys. Your new home.
Congratulations to all of you who hung in there. I lost focus after about 7 years and many $10Ks. Glad I crawled back just in time for... the slam in SP promised by AF upon announcement of successful results. But no matter. This will be a big win, even from this high valuation. At least I believe that. What a day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sentiment, you ignorant slu.! Just kidding! Just seeing if there are any old people on the board. What you say here makes a lot more sense than what I said. It describes a more meaningful comparison and one with better odds of a good outcome.
"I’m not sure if you’re thinking that the new end points intend to compare all patients who received DCVax (so treatment and part of the control arm… early and late) to an external control arm (ECA)… but if so, that’s not the case. They’ll be comparing the treatment arm (early) to the ECA. Then the control arm that did receive DCVax (late) will be compared to a recurrent GBM control arm.
What I really like about this is that everyone’s data is used. I would like to think that is of some consolation to the families of those in the trial who are no longer alive."