Might want to hold that hot air bit longer. Today's close of 35 was part of the norm just two weeks ago. Run-up started 7 weeks ago from 26. Typically can expect some profit-taking; especially on recent purchases in 24-26 ran few weeks ago. Yesterday's volume was 822K shares and today's was 451K, not really a massive sell-off. Figure when stock recently closed at 40, some people felt time to make some $.
Likely a counter-charge upward past 40 soon, maybe slight pull-back at 50
i bought 3486 @35 on dec 19th.no matter what jimbo says, i'm holding till they get bought out and they will get bought out,question is when
Time out guys. The valuation in my opinion is low because of mis-steps in setting expectations and the AT&T issue. But the business is there, and yes, there is growth. A few more deals to drive significant growth and cash back on the books can and will make a difference. SVV has made mistakes, but one mistake he wont make it selling the company at a depressed level or in a panic. No way would I do that. And they shouldn't. Better to sell at a higher valuation standpoint. Business 101.
Actually, either BRLI is trading at a significant discount unless its price goes up soon, there is enough reason for its shareholders to be disgruntled. BRLI had a price target of $36 and even in April they were trading at 35 & change, now after being acquired they are barely 12% higher than that. One would think they have been acquired very cheaply, not sure why mkt his discounting this acquisition so significantly.
I don't knoooooowwww. But you might want to check this out:
Jefferies analysts upgraded shares of MannKind back on May 15, 2015 to a “buy” rating and a $9 price target. Today, Jefferies analysts reiterated their buy rating and price target on the stock following MannKind’s presentation at the Jefferies Global Healthcare Conference. MannKind took the opportunity to continue raising awareness for its Afrezza drug, which is an inhalable treatment for diabetes and its strategic partnerships with Sanofi. Jefferies analyst, Shaunak Deepak said that “We look to advertising efforts in 3Q as a driver for Afrezza awareness and adoption, but we would not be overly concerned if the next few weeks of Afrezza prescription data look choppy”
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Padmasree Warrior, one of Silicon Valley's most senior female engineers, is to step down as the chief technology officer of Cisco Systems amid a leadership overhaul at the US networking equipment company.
If you're talking about Tivozanib, I hope that MET inhibition and more importantly the lack of a second VEGFR in sequence is enough to give Cabo a positive OS readout. I continue to think the experimental Tivozanib arm failed because there was an explicit option for the control Sorafenib arm to receive Tivozanib and this was an option taken by quite a few patients ~65%; the experimental Tivozanib arm however did not have an option to follow up with sorafenib and only ~30% went on to any therapy with only ~12% another VEGFR inhibitor. (See from this year's ASCO abstracts: Tivozanib vs sorafenib targeted therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma: Final results of a phase III trial (901) and efficacy results of a 2nd line tivozanib extension study (902)). The outcome:
"Follow up PFS and OS from initial randomization for the 260 pts originally receiving tivozanib was 14.6 and 29.0 mos, and for the 257 pts originally receiving sorafenib was 9.7 and 34.1 mos, respectively (PFS HR = 0.77, OS HR = 1.18)."
Other evidence like "Sequential VEGFR-Targeted Therapy for Advanced Renal Cancer" as well as from other indications "TKI Switch Shows Promise in Thyroid Cancer" makes me think that sequential VEGFRs could significantly extend OS over a single VEGFR and this is what happened with 901 / 901. As a side note, there was an abstract at this year's ASCO describing the differences between Sunitinib - Everolimus versus Everolimus - Sunitinib in a trial called RECORD 3. Although PFS was similar in the two arms, OS was much better in the Sunitinib first arm. This and what oncodoc said about his procedure makes me think various VEGFRs in sequence will be tried first and an MTOR inhibitor at the very end will probably be standard going forward in the long run for all patients who don't respond to a PD-1 inhibitor.
Best service out there no question about it, they had three excellent wins to their members this week.
very nice information 98 ! Thank you
---Do you agree the Prelim FBP data in the high dose cohort is truly beautiful and nearly flawless 1/15 Patients suffered a cancer recurrence vs 11/22 in the non vaccine control.
The Final Results Presentation announcement is Imminent- I can not wait. Gale CEO did say on the call that final results would be presented around ASCO and here we are --
More Prelim data: P value 0.01
prevented 95% of ovarian and endometrial cancers -- Are the boosters being loaded is this a real Immuno Oncology Rocket about to blast -- we will see. Deep Pipeline keeps going and going with many near term catalysts.
NeuVAX P3 Data unblinding
NeuVAX Herceptin Combo trial data
New Checkpoint Clinical trials
Where is obama with all his "green" money?? AXIH is a perfect example of reuse and reclaim. Just not sexy like electric cars and solar power.
A new Arizona law would unconstitutionally force doctors to lie to their patients about the reversibility of medical abortions, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Planned Parenthood and various Arizona health care providers.
The lawsuit challenges the recently passed SB 1318, which adds new restrictions for women seeking abortion. Specifically, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to stop the law from taking effect over a provision that requires doctors to tell their patients that it "may be possible" to reverse the effects of a medical abortion.
"This dangerous law forces doctors to lie to their patients," Dr. Ilana Addis, chair of the Arizona Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a press call Thursday. Addis said there is no credible medical science to support the claim that medical abortions are reversible.
"It’s stunning to me that politicians think they’re qualified to dispense medical advice," Addis noted.
The bill specifies that doctors must must tell a woman seeking an abortion both on the phone and in person that it "may be possible to reverse the effects of a medication abortion if the woman changes her mind but that time is of the essence," and that "information on and assistance with reversing the effects of a medication abortion is available on the Department of Health Services website.”
About three-fourths of the abortions provided in Arizona are surgical, the lawsuit states.
Addis said heath care providers are ethically obligated to provide patients "[medically] accurate, unbiased information about their options" so that patients can make an informed decision on their own.
"Politicians are putting words in doctors' mouths that the doctors should't have to say," ACLU staff attorney Andrew Beck said Thursday. "Forcing doctors to make these misleading statements to women is just bad medicine."
In forcing doctors to "unwillingly and against their best medical judgment" give patients "a state-mandated message that is neither medically nor scientifically supported," plaintiffs argue the law in question also violates doctors' First Amendment rights.
"On behalf of Law Offices of Judy Snyder posted in Failure to Diagnose on Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
A company called Peregrine Pharmaceuticals is suing another company called Clinical Supplies Management for an error that compromised a cancer treatment study from 2010 to 2012. The clinical study was supposed to have one group of patients receive the drug, and the other group receive a placebo. Peregrine was the company overseeing the study, and CSM was simply a third party supplying the substances."
“Based on available scientific information, we found that hydraulic fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that has not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources,” said Tom Burke, science advisor and deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “In fact, the number of documented impacts to drinking water resources is relatively low compared to the number of fractured wells.”