Replies to post #5984 on GTC Biotherapeutics (fka GTCB)

[Aiming4]

Wayne - a very interesting post, I wish you'd post more often - so far you've only posted 17 times over 15 months, and all of your posts on the GTCB board.

I didn't expect, with the points that you made, that your sentiment would be that GTCB's current price makes for a "safer" place for investors and you can't imagine the price going much lower.

If you don't mind saying, with the various observations you made and % chances of success/failure you estimated, why don't you think GTCB could go much lower?

If other investors have the same thoughts you do, it would seem like there is more than a negligible chance for greater price depreciation.

Thanks for your thoughts, I'm genuinely curious to read them as I've been considering putting some money into GTCB.

[OKY]

OK, I have to agree you have woven possible paths to
semi destruction, although a few of your paths do end
with $2-$3 dollars in our pockets, chump change, I agree.

You have outlined very cynical possibilities, some might even
say probabilities.

Yes there are those who would take advantage at every turn
and you make a great case as to why the real money is laying
back.

But because there is a possibility of some of the more
negative scenarios coming to the fore, it does not mean that
any of it will happen.

Although the more time that goes by at .90c - $1.00
the more I wonder why, and your warnings make more than
some sense. You leave me cold. What say the board?

I can be naive, is any of this the likelihood, or is this
the product of a mind who sees glasses half full.

Its hard enough sticking with this company 3 years without
wondering about Machiavellian scenarios.

[DewDiligence]

Re: Poison pill

You seem to be contradicting yourself because, when it comes to takeover protection, you cannot have it both ways!

If there were no poison pill, there would be less protection against a hostile takeover. When there is a poison pill, there’s a greater risk that the BoD will reject an offer that would be in shareholders’ interests. Whether to have or not have a poison pill is a tradeoff, obviously.

Moreover, you endorse the canard that GTC is effectively controlled by GENZ and, as soon as something good happens in GTC’s business, GENZ will swoop in to reap the rewards.

Inasmuch as GENZ’s equity stake in GTC is only 3.9% fully diluted, I do not understand the popularity of this notion. Regards, Dew

[jessellivermore]

Re DIC and Atryn

The rationale and promise comes from the Kyber-Sept study of DIC patients. Sorry if you want numbers you will have to check them out yourself (its sunday morning ) Basically DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulation) is a very serious and frequently fatal sequale of septcis. In DIC a hyperthombotic condition results in depletion of the platelets and coagulation elements leading eventually to bleeding. This condition has been recognised since the sixties when it was suggested despite the eventual bleeding problems that heparin might be useful. Heparin blocks the cascade and does improve survival somewhat.

In the KS study patients were treated with heparin, and heparin with AT3. It was known that AT3 levels are depressed in DIC. The study showed AT3 heparin treated group showed no increased survival over heparin alone. This seemed to cast some doubt on the importance of AT3 in the treatment of DIC. On closer inspection however there was a small but sigificant "subset" of patients who were treated with AT3 and no heparin. This set of patients did show a significant increase in survival over the Heparin or the AT3-Heparin groups. How could that be??? Well AT3 is an enzyme (a serine protease inhibitor) Like all this type enzyme it has as well as an active end, a glycolised end which effects the activity of enzyme (sorry this is confusing,,the specificity of the active end is not changed, the enzyme itself just becomes more or less efficient at doing its job). Heparin is a polysaccaride (sugar based) and decreases the over efficiency of AT3 by effecting the glycolisation.

This subset data is extremely compelling. In this case the doctors were looking survival improvement by adding AT3 to Heparin. The fact they were willing to accept the fact AT3 was ineffective in this setting is important because it clearly shows a lack of bias. They were no doubt unaware of the effect of heparin on AT3. The serendipitous recognition of this signifant subset is a compelling arguement for the effectiveness of Atryn without Heparin for the treatment of DIC.