Yes there are a lot of games going on but I will say this article was compelling as far as why the dox patients dropped off rapidly and his explanation as to why does make sense where as in blind trials could be a whole different out one.I am long but this tremor has shaken me a bit and I have been doing this a long time so I have not heard your response to these comments and slide in the article as you have not addressed this
Sentiment: Strong Buy
This is so similar it is embarrassingly obvious. Personally after positive data I will be asking SEC to find out if the two hedge funds in these two articles are the same funds and if they shorted before the article and did they buy calls to cover after it ran. Will also ask them to see if they are tied to the pearson article and the puts bought before that rag of BS was published momentarily before Forbes deleted it.
In a perfect world the SEC would step in and ask who this smartest guys is. They should also look at what options positions were put on by same. Remember the Peason article. Tons of puts bought the day before expiration and not a peep from the SEC.
Since i can't reply to uss_muliphen for some reason, i will here:
I did look at the AF article (and by the way, his "friend", not him, is the question mark) and the chart - and i see the points the mysterious hedge fund manager is making, but the two that are related to the chart - the 8 early progressions, and the 15-16 censored patients - seem to only tell part of a story - first, assuming the 8 early progressions were real, they should not be ignored, but maybe moved out a month or two, which still shows advantage to pali/dox combo generally, and second, the control arm had 13 censored patients - a similar % - should we assume that all the censored patients in one arm would have gone one way and all those in the other arm would have gone the other way?
As for dox alone performance significantly underperforming, he shows no support for that statement, though i have read alot of studies and it does not look like it "under-performed historically", but i am open to someone showing the data to back that up.
I am not arguing one way or the other here, but AF seems to be covering himself (which he has been known to do) rather than bashing as he made clear at the outset that HE still expected good results (and as you've stated, he has been right more than wrong), and i personally think the article is very one-sided, which is not unexpected since it gives one side of the argument.
And to a point you made in another post, he is not 22 for 22 here, since ZIOP market cap is well above the $300 million threshold so often referenced in the Feurstein-Ratan "rule", if any true mathmetician or scientist would call it more than a predictive observation of results.
Why would the SEC step in and ask who 'this smartest guy is" anymore thatn they would step in and ask who you are with your opinion?
The only difference between him with his opinion, and you with your opinion, is he is in the medical field., and knows specifically of what he is talking about....and correctly called the CLSN fiasco, he nailed it.
Did you actually read the latest AF blurb, and see on page #2 the slide, and then go on to read the rest of the article?
AF's source is not just pulling a wild guess out of thin air.............he is specifically telling where his conclusion is coming from.
Facts......not message board B.S..
I am no AF fan, numerous stocks I've had he bashed, but there are some instances, actually many of them, where you have to admit.....he is right.
CLSN prolonged their release to the very last minute............does that sound familiar here?