"Buyins.com incidentally, which tracks the SHO listings, has started some kind of paid short squeeze service. That could turn up a lot more Refcos if it gets rolling."
I think that it is actually buyins.net - but this is a pretty interesting site, thanks for mentioning it. It is probably worth most of our time to take a quick look.
Perhaps those who hope to get a short squeeze out of this will turn out to be right. I certainly would love to see it and I have to admit that it is encoraging that this finally seems to be getting on some radar screens. But, I think that there are a number of good reasons to be in this stock and that any potential short squeeze should be regarded as an unexpected bonus, if it ever happens.
<<After selling counterfeit shares illegally, why would naked shorters feel compelled EVER to buy them back?>>
Suppose there are 8,000,000 shares sold as naked shorts
Suppose the average price sold was at $10.00 per share
Suppose the current price of the stock is at $5.00 per share
The naked shorts have a unrealized profit of $40,000,000. The brokerage firm that is allowing the naked shorts to exist is comfortable because the account has a positive balance. If on the other hand, the stock goes to $50.00 a share this unrealized profit of $40,000,000 now becomes an unrealized loss of $320,000,000 generating a margin call. The brokerage firm that is allowing the naked shorts to exist is going to be demanding that the naked shorts deposit more money to cover their margin call or force them to close their position which means they will need to buy to close the position. Good news will eventually drive the naked shorts out of this stock as the pain becomes to great.
"This is a one-two punch," said study author Dr. Johannes Vieweg, an immunology expert at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. "Now we have a means to boost the immune system by incredible amounts, so we are very, very excited to be the first to make this work."
Unlike routine inoculations, such as the polio and tetanus vaccine, the kidney cancer vaccine Vieweg and his colleagues are working with is not designed to immunize a healthy patient from developing the disease.
Instead, it is a treatment vaccine given to halt the growth of tumors in patients already diagnosed with cancer.
Working with 11 patients -- 10 with kidney cancer, and one with ovarian cancer -- the Duke team compared the results of vaccine treatment alone with vaccine treatment coupled with Ontak.
In the Dec. 1 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, the researchers reported that seven patients received one dose of Ontak (denileukin diftitox) four days prior to vaccination, while four other patients received just the vaccine alone, in three doses, spread out bi-weekly.
It was important to offer Ontak before -- not after -- vaccination, the researchers said, because post-vaccine administration could actually interfere with T cell production.
Lab analyses showed that Ontak reduced T-reg counts by between 26 percent and 76 percent, with no toxic effects on other cell functions.
As expected, patients on the Ontak-vaccine regimen saw their T cell counts continuing to rise over time to much higher levels than those seen in the vaccine-only group.
Vieweg's team noted, however, that T-reg elimination was not permanent, with 75 percent of these cells growing back within two months after Ontak therapy.
But they believe the combination strategy has real promise. "This is a profound feat, because it never has been shown before in patients," Vieweg said.
"The next step is to look at the clinical efficacy of the combo strategy," he said. "And what we are currently pursuing is to enhance the depletion levels further, so we have a more durable effect, because the suppressor cells quickly come back."
Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, described the research as "important and valuable."
However, he cautioned that cancer patients should not view the vaccine under study, or any cancer vaccine, as something that can help them in their struggle today.
"In the bigger picture -- despite 30 years of extremely limited success -- many investigators still believe in the concept that we can develop an effective cancer vaccine," Lichtenfeld noted. "But there are so many approaches to the concept and so many different questions that have to be answered that it's very difficult. And I suspect we're going to commit ourselves to another 30 years to keep working on this."
"So, yes, they demonstrated that by using Ontak, they could decrease the specific T-reg cells and as a result of that they could see a better immune response in the patients to their cancer vaccine," he acknowledged.
"But what they did not do, and do not say, is that that necessarily helped the patients do better. And they had a very small number of patients," Lichtenfeld said. "So, I expect they will take this information and apply it in a clinical trial to figure out whether or not it really makes a difference."<<
JCI is open access, so here's the link to the full article in PDF:
Terry is just in a funk. Kind of hard to understand his game sometimes, to be frank. But, I would not take his negativity too seriously.
In reality, this is probably an excellent time to be in AGEN. We are near phase III RCC results on a drug that the CEO argues to have blockbuster potential. We had Melanoma results that the company has characterized as "very strong", because no drug has ever had an impact on survivability for Melanoma and Oncophage was compared to a Doctor's Choice regimen (where the Doctor chose the very best regimen available to him) where it decidely beat those regimens in the M1a segment.
Further, UCSF is launching a phase I/II study on their own nickel, which is an indication that they see some reason to believe that Oncophage should be of interest. Far from having "too many irons in the fire", as Terry said, AGEN management has long been thinking beyond one drug to a day when they can have a full range of innovative products, each of which would have blockbuster potential (think of the value of an effective Herpes treatment, for example). I think that Garo is not interested in a one-drug success, it looks as though he is trying to build the next Amgen or DNA. The fact that they are getting those other drugs into various proof-of-concept trials, with a goal of selling or partnering to obtain significant funds, is another reason for optimism.
The CEO and key players all have a very significant stake in the success of the company. At least one large investor made a large investement in AGEN at $15/share. The CEO was instrumental in the resurrection of Elan, the recently hired marketing person has been involved in the launch of various high profile drug launches and her hiring is another reason for optimism (she just joined the staff, and you can bet that she did not join to pump a product that does not work). All solid reasons for some optimism, especially at anything under $10/share - when looked at against the enormous gains we will see if things work out as we hope they will. Just one opinion, of course, but I think that you will find that most of the longer term posters on this board will generally agree with this assessment.
Great post biomac you nailed the issues dead on. I also agree with your comparing AGEN with Amgen and DNA when they were preapproval. AMGN sold off down to $3/share late P3 ;now with stock splits would be in the $2000/ share area.
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving
Biomac,thanks for your great posts.I dont think Terry is negative.I believe he is very positive but he wants to prevent people from getting too enthusiastic.As you know investors tend to get overly optimistic in some up days, and i believe Terry tries to prevent them from that,so they can stay in the ground.For example a little more delay in releasing results could bring the stock down and we dont know if extremely optimistic investors buy the calls or the real shares.Personaly i am more optimistic than ever but 95%of my money are in real shares...so if something unfortunate happens in the short term is not gonna hurt me...I am always thankful for your help as everybody else is in this board.
I agree with and appreciate your appraisal of AGEN.In the near term there is more movemt to come from possible short covering than from news.The actual short % is over 50% when seen as a % of the available float.That entails removing from the float-insiders,major supporters like Brad Kelly and other closely held investors.On top of this they are meeting Nov 30 to address naked shorting and looking for the SEC to take a stance.This could be some good fertilizer over the coming 30 days.
Many thanks for your thoughtful response.
I do not have the scientific background to make substantive contibutions to this board, but the approach taken by AGEN makes a lot more sense to me than does the current conventional wisdom applied to fighting cancer. Pumping up and enabling the body's immune system may not effect a cure, but it should go a long way to reducing the suffering and death toll. Good luck and prosperity to all longs.