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.
Bummer on the one hand, great for science on the other
If they streamlined this entire line of R&D... for us that's not good long term, but it is probably good for killing cancer long term in general.
Also remember to keep an eye out for BNCT, boron neutron capture therapy 'surprise'.
https://physicsworld.com/a/boron-neutron-capture-therapy-is-back-on-the-agenda/
Basically, drink some boron, it is rapidly absorbed by cancer cells, and the boron concentration then makes them more susceptible to neutron beam interaction. (neutron is "neutral" and hard to "collide" with, except, ... boron)
So in theory you can go get zapped head to toe and blast all cancer cells, and then do it a few times over a few weeks.
There is certainly time pressure on getting a product out here
Did you see the part where the similar thinking also leads to a potential anti-COVID ?
Seems like we blazed this trail. Dunno for sure, but as far as I know, we had all this going first.
Interesting
That's why I suggested July 4
Not because the detailed math on that, but because the median math on that
I haven't been to that one in a while, kinda cool
@All re: finding hints
Consider what's it, 65000 H&N per year
We're looking at a possible maximum of right about 400 total possible "yay success". ( in a total population of several billion facebook users - for example )
And then you have to add "I don't know if it was the experimental treatment or the standard of care that fixed me, I've never had cancer before, how can I know..."
And then you have to add "I still have cancer but I am not dead yet"
And THEN "Oh yeah, I signed an NDA"
Then we have to split that population into many languages, Chinese, English, ... I'd have to go look.
There are a lot of legit reasons why it would be hard or impossible to find some testimonial "even if" the success rate is very high.
Maybe their study size was too small on that one
For NWBO, I remember reading about the subgroup situation and that seemed pretty clear, but also pretty positive for the subgroup.
Next week for CVM ?
I'm still thinking July 4
I could be wrong, but I doubt that is going to move the needle much on a 242B market cap company.
Added to the watch list.
@indo
Interesting, I am writing a tool that does that :)
Meanwhile, this board is an example of something that serves that purpose.
I can go back and see "Did I say $22.70 by Friday?"
And find, no. I said $20.70.
Our little roll-over failed (so far), no idea why.
I can go back farther and go "Oh... 'we appear to be range bound'"
@Indo
Ok, read that, a couple times.
Have you been able to put that to any good use ?
I am not so sure short interest is any accurate reflection of short seller interest. If you sell an uncovered call, that is "short" and "short interest"
So if short interest is very high I might go "ok yeah, people are naked shorting this" and also the "failures to deliver" <- is a better indicator of how much of that is going on
You also don't really know who is selling some uncovered calls while buying other calls, etc., it is just a number out there like total number of atoms in the universe, but those are all kinda well balanced
I don't tend to care and that works for me. I pick a winner on some kind of reason to succeed, typically something science that nobody is really digging into, too busy worried about other stock players than what the heck is really going on with a product or something.
I am not complaining, I am merely saying I don't tend to care about that.
That being said, consider that if you have a very large exposure, say lots of CVM shares, it is wise to do some options kung fu, straight up, on margin, naked... etc., because we are either going to go up huge or down huge.
I would expect some of the longiest longs to have fantastic "insurance"
@conix
Depends on the time scale, but generally "Yes"
Of course, the shorter scales recover "information" sooner than the longer scales.
Historically with relatively flat obv and or price, that's when the shorts always hit us (another note)
If any of those survived maybe they will do it again
But that is tempered (imnsho) by how close we have to be to reporting
@conix
I like the "info" of the volume indicator on your chart
If I squish mine to the scale of yours it looks like this below
NOTE: look the word "Feb" bottom right, start there
Notice the OBV is volatile from that exact line forward compared to any other time (minus the big pop before that point)
It is kinda sorta down-trend or flat, over all flat, but the shorter time, red line on the obv area at bottom, is not happy. The yellow line is "not sad", the MA 200.
= very near term odds are down, but over a week or two "meh", the 200 MA OBV is not "rolling over" yet, it tried to but went flat = strength
Abstract
Judges who had estimated the likelihood of various possible outcomes of President Nixon's trips to Peking and Moscow were unexpectedly asked to remember, or reconstruct in the event that they had forgotten, their own predictions some time after the visits were completed. In addition, they indicated whether or not they thought that each event had in fact occurred. Remembered—reconstructed probabilities were generally higher than the originally assigned probabilities for events believed to have occurred and lower for those which had not (although the latter effect was less pronounced). In their original predictions, subjects overestimated low probabilities and underestimated high probabilities, although they were generally quite accurate. Judging by their reconstructed—remembered probabilities, however, subjects seldom perceived having been very surprised by what had or had not happened. These results are discussed in terms of cognitive “anchoring” and possible detrimental effects of outcome feedback.
----------------
Before I run out of time in the day, what about deep down we ourselves are a stochastic process with (ultimately) stochastic expectations.
This introduction above appears to assume rigorous sequential logic in our core... and perhaps glosses over the need for "garbage collection" - cleaning up unused variables, "freeing RAM"...
?
The "hindsight is 20/20" thing is really annoying :)
Remember when we were at $0.20ish ?
Same thing on that one
Why ? Also no current product with a cash-flow
But a finished one pending some approvals and "major league" deployment
Read more as time allows
@sab
For the Vaccines, I think it is a bunch of hogwash all the way around
Somebody would have cured the common cold by now if that were possible
It too, is a coronavirus
I'm going with mass testing capability. See: FLURF
We however might actually have a shot, we have something like an anti-viral wrapper for any payload anti-viral with the LEAPS
@sab
Hip-shot, 30 minute chart says we do about $20.70 or so on Friday
I don't play the short term stuff but I watch
Now we're talkin
That's about as early as I'd care to go on those, July something mid late
@sab
I hear you on that.
Let me know if an idea pops up. My idea is to make my life less effort and frustration, and while I'm at it, likely make it opensource.
@GD
February ?
You get success on that short of timeframe ?
A lot, lot, of time decay...
Of course, they are cheaper... Just too much blood pressure for me
highest volume(02/19/2021 30 Call) 303
highest interest(02/19/2021 10 Put) 15830
highest change(02/19/2021 35 Put) 4.95
highest change(04/16/2021 5 Call) -3.5
Hey question, who all does options ?
I got mad at things and built something
Reboot
Anybody who has been here a while or anybody new...
This is a really big deal now, forget what you knew
The device can do amazing things and has a bright future
Do I still get to be the Lone Ranger ?
Probably should have been twice as big then, study size
Also it is a PD-L1 subgroup target
Far as I know, we don't care about that
monoclonal antibody looking for any plausible excuse to get out ahead
study design is a shotgun blast of excuses to get approved
2 year study time frame (for the patient)
We know that you have a hard time sucking signal from such a short time frame and also given the effect on signal of the duration of the enrollment process.
It almost looks like a study design failure. We'll have to see the reports of how it actually worked, missed by how much, was actually effective in certain cases or not, etc., etc.,
Interesting, right ?
I'd share what I did and point you to what Fosco did, but if you want a go at this, maybe best not to taint your view of it first.
Suffice to say, we found only reasonable limits to how high it could possibly be given gleaned information.
Today, the first thing I would do starting over on that is email Gavin, Investor Relations, and see if we can just straight up ask now.
One thing to consider is, once you are injected, and the measure is "are you still alive?", exactly how do you "drop out" of the study.
It is not like a choice to "no longer participate" has any meaning. "I don't want to receive any more injections" - fine, you were done with that at 3 weeks. Now, simply, are you still alive?
The idea of "drop outs" itself actually doesn't make much sense in this study after your first 3 weeks.
But you will find yourself clawing for reasons for the duration other than simple effectiveness. Drop out rate is one of them. But how...
Exactly why doesn't a lower share price help us ?
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/02/04/2169916/0/en/Brian-Shield-Boston-Red-Sox-VP-of-IT-Joins-Flurotech-Advisory-Board.html
1. There is no reason spectroscopy cannot work as intended here to screen COVID as fast as claimed
2. A major league "" noticed
Seems we just need a hockey guy and a football guy and a soccer guy :)
$h|t just got real
@GD
From what I understand on NWBO, a subset of their enrolled population responded well, the kind of well that if you are well funded you halt and re-launch with a specific targeted enrollment, but they couldn't or didn't.
Seems like "it works"... for particular people, but the trial was not knowing of this up-front enough to dial a more dramatic results by way of enrolling just the effective ones up-front when it started.
Will that evidence-so-far be enough for them to get to FDA with it...
We could be in that same situation and not know it here, yet. But I'm pretty sure we have a bigger over all "signal" of effectiveness.
In their case, NWBO, they could actually get a buyout even if this particular trial set-up failed, because their IP might be worth a lot if run again, the right way.
Er, um...
"I'm not holding my breath, ... until July 4th"
Comma ?
I'm not holding my breath until July 4 :)
@bio
( I was typing when you posted )
----
So the knowable information is, along those lines, ...
794 test and control patients
-298 events
===============================
496 living (of 794)
The auxiliary arm, 928 - 794 = 134 patients we know nothing about (yet)
62.47% of the total population of test and control (794) is still alive. (when 298 events occurred)
That was AT pretty much 3 years (or longer) for all enrolled
Crudely 1/3rd at 5yr+, 1/3rd at 4yr, 1/3rd at 3 year.
=======================================================================
Now, what happens is there is a crude expectation if you just look at raw numbers, how many enrolled.
The whole thing DOES automatically SLIDE forward in time if you look at the Monthly Enrollment (quite a bit)
"Took 2 years longer than expected" - take with a small grain of salt, that is a complicated statement when you factor the monthly enrollment.
I would have to go back and jump through hoops again, but back of the napkin, about a year.
We recover the drama though if we ponder how significant an effectivness in the test arm has to be if the SOC arm matches literature and does not fluke high.
@sab
No
The 298 has to come from test and control groups, not the auxiliary arm
Crudely 400 test subjects 400 control subjects ( minus 6 )
The auxiliary arm (1/7th of total enrollment) is not part of the comparison .
298 events come from test and control "arms"
When you are enrolled into the trial 3/7ths go in to the test group.
3/7ths go into the control group.
1/7th go into the auxiliary group.
only the test and control groups are compared for the primary end point
All events come from here only.
It is misinformation to use the 928 number, we have no accounting whatsoever of any events in the auxiliary arm. ( unless somebody published something that I am not aware of )
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01265849?term=multikine&draw=2&rank=3
imho, disregard things from the time of the arbitration with the former CRO
We've been over this a lot. Move along.
928 - 794 = auxiliary arm
794 / 2 = test and control groups
Next!
@sab
One thing, the market cap should probably be $1.2B at the moment, another type of "constraint" so to speak, but that can happen with total shares outstanding and or share price. Not sure how much stuff is in reserve there, y'all been following all that, but that is all noise compared to whatever happens boom or bust.
Maybe the difference is perspective
I am really not looking at the trading angle, I'm looking at the fly or die, binary type of event, and occasionally looking at technicals when I'm thinking about adjusting something, when is a good price for what.
So my comments are likely tainted by my view of this. As far as I am concerned it can go all over the place and the lower the better for good pricing, the higher the better for where to buy insurance.
Bullish OBV, yes. For the purpose of trading in and out, maybe not so much, except for the range I mentioned seems like it will prove out for a while. (All rights on wrong reserved)
Good buy by Stingman ? Surely.
I think the shares outstanding would have to increase, wouldn't it ? If warrants are exercised ?