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.
Let's see how much of the collusive short positions start covering today. Looks like a big buying/reloading opportunity with this collusive HF manipulative take down.
A franchise arrangement, or even the announcement of an intent, would escalate the SP sufficiently. I doubt any BP suitor would want to have to mess with and undo such relationships... and, therefore, might prompt a serious offer from the get-go.
"Franchise" was mentioned in their PR. Whether that means a commercial franchise or a term for their vaccine platform is the basis for speculation, but a commercial franchise could certainly be implemented... and would make perfect sense.
You're the loyal shareholder who continues to hold while bashing away. We're very familiar with how the FUDsters 👺 and their handlers operate before there's approval. This is no surprise... thus, we trade it. Hope you're adding at these manipulated lows! Good luck!
And yet you're still a shareholder. LOL. Tell us, genius, are you accumulating?
That is totally bogus and an oversimplification to say the least. To assume each arm exhibited the same level of placebo affect is naïve... and certainly shows how biotech isn't for everyone.
All aspects of the trial introduces elements that can adversely affect the placebo result, especially in the case where hopeful parents are answering test questions on behalf of the patient. The fact that no other Rett trial has ever produced such an extraordinarily large placebo effect suggests there are unusual conditions to it. One was mentioned by Walter E Kaufmann, MD, Chief Scientific Officer of Anavex commented, βWe believe that a high placebo response may have masked the therapeutic effect of this innovative orally available molecule. High placebo responses are well documented especially in pediatric clinical studies. Although data analysis is ongoing, the early conclusion is that the placebo rate could have been higher in the study due to a slight imbalance in disease severity at baseline, across the treatment arms, and the 2 to 1 drug to placebo randomization ratio." The other is the lack of SAEs, which results in a truly blinded trial. Unlike trofinetide, where due to the side effects and lack thereof in the placebo group, parents virtually "knew" whether their daughters were on the drug or not. Thus, the trofinetide trail had more realistic placebo results than that of blarcamesine... where hopeful parents were "seeing" improvements that weren't really there. Those perceived improvements were likely the result of positive feedback from the patient to the positive influence of the parents. Had there been gastro issues with blarcamesine, it would be a good bet that the "placebo effect" would've been much lower, in the absence of an SAE (i.e. less hopeful parents). In fact, it wouldn't have taken much of a reduced placebo result for the RSBQ to be stat. sig. at the arbitrary p-value of .05 (compared to the calculated .063). Another factor, that negatively impacted the results, was that most of the interviews were done remotely, rather in person (due to Covid).
For the trofinetide trial, where parents virtually knew that their daughters were on the drug (due to gastro issues), they still couldn't bias their evaluation to a higher "hopeful" average result beyond -5.1 (which is less than the blarcamesine placebo result) because the true benefit was only marginal.
We'll see what the regulators have to say in review of the total trial data, OLE, RWE and perhaps the influence of the Rett Syndrome org. Deciding to run another trial, as a conservative measure, doesn't mean that all regulators have reviewed the data.
It's possible that the scope of the review could include PDD and perhaps Rett, in addition to AD... since the target for each is S1R.
...working for their HF handlers.
AACR in love with mRNA cancer vaccines, even with their yet-to-be-proven and likely limited efficacy. Boy, are they going to be surprised when DCVax-L gets approved.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/aacr-24-cancer-vaccines-get-reintroduction-technology-finally-comes-together?utm_medium=email&utm_source=nl&utm_campaign=LS-NL-FierceBiotech&oly_enc_id=2560A2054734H1W
And yet you're still an investor. One who continues to hold shares as he continues to bash the CEO and drug, all the while his handlers take the price down with collusive coordination. That's real loyalty, I tell you!
And yet you're still a loyal shareholder. 👺
Unlike NWBO, they have no pivotal results yet... nothing has been submitted, but the FDA is waiting on the BPs to submit. SMH
This is why it's advantageous for NWBO to pursue UK first.
'We're open for business': FDA's Peter Marks says agency ready to review novel cancer vaccines despite unknowns
We can always count on "associates" to come to the defense. Must protect the tribe, right?
Yeah, it certainly helps to be privy to the collusive HF handlers' "script", doesn't it? No doubt, it's much easier to make a profit knowing that another planned short attack was in the works with the CTAD AD readout and to sell ahead of it... as opposed to having to rely on one's own anticipations of their actions, which is certainly not as accurate or guaranteed. Makes it that much easier to be playing with the house's (i.e. retail's) money, as one claims.
These postings by Anavex may very well be indicative and suggestive to the scope of the content in the forthcoming peer-reviewed journal article. AD. PDD, and perhaps more?
This sort of suggests, as I've been speculating, that the PDD data will likely be included with the AD data in a comprehensive peer-reviewed article on the efficacy and safety of blarcamesine. It would make complete sense. We'll soon see...
Here it is; just for you... 🖕
I sell every manipulated SP pop that your handlers orchestrate... because they always walk it back down, where one can reload. Again, tell your handlers 'thanks' for me. $$$
Damn right... reloaded all 100k shares by EOD. Tell your handlers 'thanks' for me! $$$
Yep, the collusive manipulators have to cover their collusive short positions eventually...
I'll gladly take a $10k profit on a quick 100k-sh sale and a reload .10 lower... while holding a large core position.
Bought back half (50k) and will buy the rest back EOD. So, go pound sand, FUDster!
More accurately... the capitulation post 20% gain is nearing exhaustion and about to charge higher, through the .65 resistance. I'll be reloading yesterday's sold shares soon ~.58.
Spot on! There's plenty of hired-hands to go around, with AF being their king FUD mouthpiece. Just look at how many they hire to work this board...
So, you don't think that the PDD data will be included with the AD data in the peer-reviewed journal? Since the two are closely related, it would seem a good opportunity to provide a comprehensive analysis of blarcamesine's efficacy & safety with the implication that it'll be effective therapy in addressing multiple degenerative CNS indications.
I think there's a distinct possibility.
In the past months, institutions appear to be buying, not selling... regardless of the fund type. They know the collusive HF shenanigans being played and perhaps are part and party to it. I suspect they'll be buying more. If they're buying more then we should do the same... and soon... before the peer-reviewed journal is published.
The partnerships could be in the form of franchises, outside of the UK.
You misspelled cabal again. Not one person here truly believes this sell down is "market" driven... nope, not one. Everyone knows it's the work of collusive manipulation by a handful of HFs (the FUDsters' employers) to attack a biotech that is about to submit an MAA and have its AD (+PDD?) data published in a peer-reviewed journal. Their mission is to drive retail investors out so that they and their institutional buddies can load up on cheap shares. It's an all too familiar tactic that's been done to many biotechs in the past. FUDsters work day, night and weekends for their handlers to provide a FUD-based smokescreen cover.
It seems he fully expects DCVax-L to be approved soon...
The only selling/shorting is by the same collusive manipulation machine (small trades) as always... their purpose is to walk it down till news. It's one big scare tactic.
Your own advice: be skeptical of posters on this MB. Yours is a prime example. 👺
And yet you claim to be a shareholder. LOL
We fully expected an organized short attack from $10 down, regardless of how excellent the Rett trial outcome was... it was going to happen; it always does. The only question was how big of lies were the FUDsters going to tell as cover. Investor tipped us off in Nov when he stated that he was expecting "cherry picked" data with the Excellence trial. We appreciated the tip, Investor. It confirmed for us to get out at $10. Now we sit with double our share count.
You want to blame the trial results for the SP decline, but in reality it's always the result of an organized short attack. But you know this.
I fully expect them to be seeking FDA guidance for NDA submission for Rett in total, as the Excellence results clearly demonstrated efficacy and safety, even if the results weren't technically stat. sig., due to the extraordinarily large placebo response, which can easily be explained and likely accepted by regulators. Regulators will review the entirety of data when making their decision, including the years of extension data demonstrating QoL improvements and substantial reduction in seizure frequency.
In the meantime we wait for the peer-reviewed journal article and MAA submission for AD.
Ask your handlers...
The only motives investors question here are those by non-shareholders and supposed "shareholders" who post blatant lies every single day about the science, company and/or CEO. It's not a "public service" they provide. Nope... they are paid to be here; they have a job to do. Their employers (directly or indirectly) are none other than the HFs who are being sued; those who manipulate and suppress the SP. It's a nefariously collusive business and their motives, through these paid FUDsters, are to try to convince real shareholders to sell. Little do they know how futile their efforts are. Like trying to convince people that the earth is flat or that the sun won't rise in the morning. Yes, total nonsense... but that's what they're paid to do. Everyone here knows to just ignore them.
You're an idiot. 👺🐀
I'm in the camp that believes they plan to franchise the technology outside of the UK. That will facilitate a ramp up of production and revenues in multiple countries beyond their UK commercialization... and a proper valuation for a future buyout.
However, an interested BP suitor would likely not want to deal with a franchise arrangement and might very well preclude those plans with a legitimate BO offer.
I agree with your supposition, as PDD is certainly related to AD and will add further evidence of efficacy and safety. It is why I believe we'll also see the PDD data included in the peer-reviewed journal article. Not only is it relative, but why wouldn't a company include it into one larger encompassing article rather than push two separate articles? Perhaps it's one reason for the time it's taking to get published.