InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

sentiment_stocks

05/05/21 1:48 AM

#374576 RE: DavidW2 #374574

So to be specific, I believe that 49.1% is what the 2018 blended trial data showed was the life expectancy at 3 years for the methylated group.

https://nwbio.com/updated-interim-data-from-phase-3-trial-of-dcvax-l-for-glioblastoma/
icon url

biosectinvestor

05/05/21 1:59 AM

#374578 RE: DavidW2 #374574

Because the market is skeptical of cell therapies, especially when the companies are attacked non-stop and the media is not beating a drum for the technology as they did for Car-T. Institutions can't buy, so they are out of the picture and retail is not all that alert and there is a craze in crypto, so most attention is going there or with companies that are celebrated in the media for which shares are easy to buy, meaning they are listed on the NASDAQ or other markets where, for instance, Robinhood share accumulators are allowed to buy.

The first thing most newbies will face is the warning about OTC and penny stocks to have bought shares at .14, then minor due diligence would pull up incredible fud. I have friends and relatives who probably should have bought some small amount here, but their brokers, they still have brokers, 1) had to warn them; and 2) steer them into something that their firm WANTS to sell. "Oh, you like biotech, how about GIlead?" That is why hedge funds LOVE LOVE LOVE this space. It's so easy to short and the money pours in their pockets. They effectively pocket the company as a cheap fallback and then if the trial looks good, they can buy it up for cheap while their money has been working elsewhere and they can claim they were a genius for "discovering" this "beat up stock". Meanwhile, they had a desk of traders posting non-stop what a loser it was and how it's a scam. They knew there would be dilution, keeping the price down accelerates dilution... they made beaucoup money going down and they then make it going up. And "journalists" in the financial sector kiss their buts because they "look smart" for predicting where it all was going. A la Jim Cramer... all IMHO. And their positions are all leveraged, so, they did not even have to have the cash at some point, and had it working elsewhere while their positions were "in the money" on the initial short and their prime broker is lending to them on an overall portfolio position, which probably also includes more lendable positions. They can do swaps or futures or whatever they need to do that most retail will never do, and then leverage those positions. But if a position goes against them, they do actually have to cover, even if it's not showing up as a "short" position.