InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

newmike

02/20/18 6:08 PM

#20232 RE: fred198484 #20229

Fred198484

The problem is the OTCBB, 99% of investment brokers cannot buy CYDY. The OTCBB is an unregulated board and many phantom shorts. I promise if we had a total cure for HIV the stock would go down. I have always seen when it's good news it goes the opposite direction. I pray it goes up because I am sitting on 4.5 million shares for a long time. I am for a reverse split and move to the NY exchange the same day.
icon url

BlueHorseshoe13

02/20/18 6:10 PM

#20233 RE: fred198484 #20229

“Perhaps the most telling thing was the company stating that this data will help them recruit for the mono trial”

Fred, please share with us exactly where the company “stated” that information. In fact, they did not.

In fact they said, “we look forward to completing enrollment in our ongoing monotherapy trial in HIV infection.”

But you never let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

And you obviously don’t understand “p” value at all.
icon url

BlackDoggie

02/20/18 6:13 PM

#20234 RE: fred198484 #20229

I actually don't disagree that I don't love the wording of the PR, and the fact that they never mentioned a BLA was disheartening. I would have also loved for them to mention a conference call to discuss results. But let's replay the tape a little bit...

- First, low p-value indicates strong evidence against the null hypothesis. A very low p-value - typically cited as below 0.05 - is a good thing. The company stated that it was below 0.01. That's VERY good. Why do you think they included the p-value in the press release? It suggests that the data was very conclusive. Don't believe me? You don't have to: http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics-2/how-to-correctly-interpret-p-values

- The company didn't say it would "help them recruit for mono". They said they "look forward to completing enrollment in our ongoing monotherapy trial". Those two statements do not mean the same thing, and it's at best intellectually dishonest to suggest that they do.

- You've been saying for as long as I can recall that Paulson is surely tapped out, the company is on the brink of a financial crisis... well, they raised $10mm (I know not all of that goes to the company) on Friday. Granted, it was not on favorable terms given the previous close and 10-day average. But they got $10mm. Doesn't strike me that they have issues getting money if they need it, and it probably just got easier since they now have met primary endpoints in a pivotal P3 and at least partially validated the science. Your suggestion that these investors would be calling lawyers is baffling.

- On the topic of the money, I wasn't happy that they raised that much money at that price, but it was likely an insurance policy. They probably knew that they would be getting the results back, but didn't know conclusively which way they were going. Because it was a blinded trial. Better to have the money and not need it, although I would absolutely like to hear management explain this for themselves.

- You have no basis for saying that there won't be a BLA for combo. In fact, the company has stated in previous press releases (10/13, for example) and conference calls (10/19, for example) that this was the goal they were working towards for combo. Your inference based on a (disappointing, admittedly) omission of three letters from a PR is wild conjecture at best.

- 1.6mm shares were bought (and sold...) today. That's far more than the average volume this share has seen in it's recent run up, and the biggest day I can recall. Demand increased significantly, because meeting PE's partially de-risks the investment thesis. The only thing that this price action suggests is that 20mm shares were issued on Friday at a 33% discount to the previous close, and they came with warrants. That math is easy... folks sold the shares and didn't care too much about the price, and they keep the warrants.


And before you accuse me of "not viewing this dispassionately", perhaps you should dispassionately review the statements above.
icon url

trding

02/20/18 6:16 PM

#20236 RE: fred198484 #20229

The low "p" value also tells you that there may have actually been many non-responders.



You do realize a low p value is a good thing?