Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Re: the most recent SA article. Does anyone else believe that this article could have been written by the same mo-fo's who penned the garbage Mako article from last August?
I have a few problems with this article and worry that it appears to be a well-crafted piece set on manipulation. Let me state clearly at the onset here that I am long CTIX and I am heavily invested since 2013, shortly after the PYMX acquisition. I am simply trying to point out my personal concerns about the tone (and intent) of this article.
Problem #1 – I agree with a few of the other skeptical comments on the article claiming that it is not balanced. While I found that none of the articles’ claims were uniquely deceiving, it was the profusely “rosey” tone and the intentional disregard of certain troubling aspects about the company and its drugs in development that made me furrow my eyebrows.
Problem #2 – the article’s countless charts touting the potential for success based on CTIX’s current stockpile of drugs and position in the marketplace reeks of bait & switch while entirely glancing over some real concerns like the selection of the Board of Directors, and a lack of expertise in the executive office.
Problem #3 (and most controversial I’m sure) - the article shares an eerily similar tone and structure as the Mako hit piece written in August of last year, albeit with a completely alternate goal. I know many will label this as conspiracy run amuck, but if you dig a little deeper and analyze the writing more closely, it could almost be written by the same person. My rationale (i.e. paranoia) is based on the following:
1. Both articles come from an Anonymous author (or authors) – I do not understand the desire to write a lengthy and heavily sourced blog article on SA and remain completely anonymous. In both the Mako case and in this case, it seems plausible that the intent is to drive the market’s perception one way or another for personal gain. A lot of work went into the articles, and it stands to reason that only someone with something substantial to gain would go to that effort.
2. Both tout their investing shrewdness and the more recent article claims a hefty stake in CTIX by the author(s) – seven figures by their own account, which would equate to at least 600,000 shares at the most recent closing prices. Such a stake would certainly be positioned to benefit substantially from even a 2-fold move in the share price.
3. Both articles make use of 5 summary bullet points at the onset of the article that are essentially counterpoints of each other. This could certainly be intentional by the most current author, but it certainly raised my eyebrows when they were lined up side by side.
4. Both articles make use of superfluous charts and graphs to create a somewhat dizzying concoction of evidence in support of their case. It almost seems as both are using some form of smoke and mirrors, the most recent trying to hide an otherwise biased attempt to pump stock’s public perception (the other openly attempting to annihilate it).
5. Both authors claim to own a treasure trove of additional data and resources to back up their positions, yet both articles only seem to skim the surface of the actual meat of the arguments in favor of (or against) the drugs in development. Overall, both authors demonstrated a similar cursory understanding of the actual science, while touting a much deeper appreciation that they really can’t back up in print. Therefore, it seems once again, both articles could have been written by the same person who has a limited understanding of the actual science, but who is instead (at least in this most recent case) a wolf in sheep’s clothing intent on driving the stock price in a particular direction, and at a particular time.
In summary, I am 100% in support of CTIX and its pipeline. Also, I’m not a sophisticated investor. I am a scientist (over 20 years in Immunology & Microbiology) and clinical consultant who is a self-proclaimed devil’s advocate and skeptic, and what I see in the most recent SA article is something that made my eyebrows raise right away…in other words, my BS detector started beeping….not loudly, but enough for me to write this friendly “buyer beware” post. My theory is that these are individuals who are building the roller coaster so they can ride it over and over. On the other hand, it is plausible that the article is nothing more than a slightly-less-than-well-balanced summary of the company.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
