InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 140
Posts 11663
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/15/2011

Re: lemmy post# 199741

Monday, 12/15/2014 7:54:17 AM

Monday, December 15, 2014 7:54:17 AM

Post# of 346670
Who says Big Pharma didn't attempt to do so with PPHM and failed.

Big Pharma will NEVER let its action be influenced by the fact that a company is a penny stock or not listed at all. It is the science and the related market potential they are interested in. Even better, BP asks no better then that a company that has something is small. Much easier target.

The sole fact that Bavi 2nd ln NSCLC was sabotaged (and probably two other PPHM trials have been tempered with too) shows something is going on.

So there are AT LEAST more indications that some party wanted to pry on them then there are to support the position that there was not.

And by the way, your "potential" related logic doesn't hold either. It is not because a drug works that it suddenly has no potential any more.

It is just like with TREND where you need to indicate the begin and end date/time. With potential a drug that could POTENTIALLY work can migrate from potential drug to working drug but will not lose its MARKET potential that then just came into existence or increased.

The lack of proper qualifications allows these erroneous logics to be applied.


And the same applies to Institutional Ownership. If the company increase the number of outstanding shares one can say the IIs don't increase if they stay at the same amount. If however more shares are net in the hands of the IIs (no matter there percentage) then whatever one may say or claim those IIs had to BUY them and PAY for them and hence increased the amount of investment in PPHM.

And that is certainly not negative accumulation whatever you mean by that.

Peregrine Pharmaceuticals the Microsoft of Biotechnology! All In My Opinion. I am not advising anything, nor accusing anyone.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CDMO News