Fri, Aug 22, 2014, 2:43 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 6 hrs 47 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Oncothyreon Inc Message Board

  • johncunningham648 johncunningham648 Nov 15, 2012 10:21 AM Flag

    Red I want to know what you think ?

    Most of the people on this board would like to hear from you.

    jake

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I've followed this board for more than 2 years now. It's been some time since I checked in and am quite surprised to see how little the dialog has advanced.

      Hear what from Red? More non-sense?

      Boards are filled with fakers posing as authorities, misleading people about being published, having inside information, etc etc. Let's look at the history:

      Red had no clue on how IRBs work (didn't even know what an IRB is!!) when the trial was halted he predicted a resumption of the trial in 4 weeks -- joker.
      This person had no idea about the routines of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal -- clue #2.
      He's recruited some idiot golfing buddy of his to post absolutely meaningless amateur-hour statistics (e.g. meta-analysis of two trials [bad enough] without looking at effect size [even worse] ) with the hope of fooling people on this board into believing that he had some sort of high-level view of success; clue #3.
      He claims to have some kind of inside information -- he worked on this technology -- in order to mislead people into thinking the trial would be halted early; clue #4.

      Think for yourselves people. Betting on this ONTY is a risky proposition at best. Don't listen to anybody's crap about how they are betting the farm. It's a marketing ploy. This Red person probably works for an investment firm. He had some expertise in biomed investing -- but that is as far as it goes. His crap is all about keeping ONTY investors in the game -- that is the long and short of it.

      Publishing the top-line results in January; Negative results are scientifically important and are published as eagerly as positive results - for obvious reasons both are considered advancements in a given field of research. ONTY results are still up the air.

      While I make no claim to know which way the results will lead the company one thing is sure -- the trial was has not been stopped because of (often-predicted) outstanding, earth-moving positive results. Like I said so many months ago -- it will go to the end, and there's no telling how that end will look.

      Don't hold your breath for $804/share.

      Until February -----

      Buzzy

      • 5 Replies to buzzcock57
      • Buzz is back! Splendid. I was wondering who would show up first: Buzz on the ONTY board or Onceaphilospher on the VICL board. One a basher the other a pumper; both share unbridled arrogance and ignorance.

        Anyone here who has been paying even just a little attention knows full well who Red is and the vast breadth of his contributions to the science.

        But what about Buzz?

        Buzz is the statistician at some top level university who doesn’t understand P values and HR.
        Buzz claims that for a given HR, the p value will not change no matter how many observations you make. (Do you still stand by this assertion or did you spend some time over the last year studying elementary stats?)

        In his world, you could run a P3 trial with a handful of people – his belief would lead to the false conclusion that we don’t need a large N to have confidence that our efficacy observations were not misleading.

        Buzz, if you understood the concept of trial powering, you would see your folly.

        Buzz is the joker who took my comment about Parmar and claimed I was running a meta-analysis to estimate what the p-value would be for a given HR and N (Parmar derived his methodology with the MOTIVATION of using it to assist with meta-analysis by extracting/deriving summary statistics from published trials where important summary statistics are not reported – BIG difference. You don’t need to be doing a meta-analysis to make use of his “tools”).

        Regardless of the fact that I was not doing meta-analysis he loves to point out the folly of meta-analysis, particularly a meta-analysis based on two trials (falsely/ignorantly implying that we were doing this with the Ph2b and Ph 2 comparability trials).

        Can anyone tell me why the FDA normally requires 2 A&WC trials, each with a p-value below 0.05, before they approve a drug?

        Anyone Anyone Bueller

      • Funny stuff hack.
        But crap top to bottom as expected.

        My smallish holding here (18K) are hardly 'the farm' , that's funny. I came by them over a long time now, including some of my original stock options from my days when I developed this product and filed the ph1 IND. Buzzy ole boy I have filed 17 INDs, you have filed how many?Before I left Canada I purchased a number of my options. Over the last 3 years as the data/trial reached maturity I have added at various times, including over the last few weeks. I will add a couple K more in the next few weeks. The SRPT run allowed me some dry powder. How about you Buzzy did you catch that one? No is my guess. Too bad.

        With regard to DNDN I did buy 3 k from 10-12 and no they did not reach their sales # to make that work. Too bad. It ate up about 20% of the 200K I had made on them a few years back. As Obama said, check the tape and move on.

        seems you are vested in playing big dog, wonder why. Oh I see it's just a wee little one.

      • Red's real identity isn't exactly a state secret so I'm comfortable in saying he is a science guy and not a fake on that front. The problem is he is just a pure science guy and he tends to mistake being gifted in science with being gifted in other areas. An example is with DNDN. A little over a year ago he was posting about his eagerness to pick up DND in the teens. He got that their science worked but didn't understand the business end that dropped DNDN from $50+ to the teens (and much lower as of late). Another example was earlier in the year he was dismissive of the notion that ONTY would be raising funds because their cash reserves weren't at zero. Roughly a week later ONTY raised funds.
        Red is science guy so listen to him on that. As for things outside of the pure science, he's just another poster.

      • Oh look

        Buzzy is back

        Great...

        I thought Buzzy would have been too busy helping the administrate obfuscate Benghazi to show up here.

        Yeah, Buzzy -- red is a charlatan. Great discovery.

      • I thought everyone uses message boards as a form of due diligence when picking speculative biotech stocks. The characters/actors who populate these places have agendas. I'm sure you do. Thanks for the entertainment. The political discussion was getting tiring. I want more character assassinations!

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • I think a lot Jake. Maybe you could be more specific? If the question is what do I think about Stimuvax I will simply say I have rolled profits from recent SRPT sale into new buys here at 4.99 (sold

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

 
ONTY
2.30-0.02(-0.86%)Aug 21 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.