This post covered the entirety of what we saw today...Read it...Read it all...
He has done this to INO, CPRX, OSIR, and now INSM among others.
So why use a semi-quantitative culture scale. Answer is simple. Fartstain is not a scientist. Mycobacterial species especially M. Avium intracellulare and other non tuberculosis mycobacteria are obligate intracellular (as the name implies) bacteria that are SLOW growing. Since they are obligate intracellular, they don't grow like e. coli or normal bacteria that don't need a human host.
In the lab my lab works with mycobacterium leprae. You have to use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to look for ribosomal RNA of mycobacteria species, since you can't really culture it by itself, you have to use a semi quantitative scale to see the growth of the pathogen in the sputum.
Seriously, AF is not a scientist, nor should he be doing reports on any biotech companies. He really needs to get off his high horse of half-truths, and learn something fully before he reports it.
He is hurting many people with his GARBAGE who are trying to invest their money in good companies with promise. You don't ever see him go after Pfizer or Roche or Gilead or Celgene do you? I am sure they have the same problems with study design, etc, because NO WAY scientific studies in humans can be perfect. He gave up on ACAD once it had too much momentum and he couldn't get his profiteer followers who give him millions for his blasphemy any more profits.
He's disgusting, goes after the small caps because he, and his short followers can, harms innocent people.
Take a look in the mirror you #$%$ piece of non-scientific dog vomit before you go after CPRX or INSM, or INO, companies that unlike you ARE trying to help people
Since profit is only available to Longs on SP appreciation for equities that don't pay dividends,
and since NTM PhII results are the only realistically foreseeable near/intermediate term driver of sustainable SP appreciation for INSM,
IF Adam F's article is bogus or merely incorrect,
THEN Longs should see this as an opportunity to buy more "cheap" shares and be happy with the temporary price suppression Adam's Farticle has created.
INSM has way more than enough cash in the bank to get to PhII data analysis, right?
Do the Longs here think that the FUD created by this article (if it is bogus) will permanently impair prospects for appreciation on real news, like NTM PhII?
Or, is there a sense that there may be something substantive to AdamF's suggestions of cherry picking the data? And, perhaps that this is a harbinger of more disappointing news to come?
If not, then the counter attacks on the article and its author seem irrational in the face of a temporary opportunity for cheap shares.
What I am saying is some people don't have anymore money to invest. They are tapped out. And some don't have the stomach to stay in an investment when they see 30% of their money go by the wayside. Now you are justifying what you do and your miserable existence at the same time. And trust me, shorting a stock, the only person in this society you care about when you do it is yourself. But heck, you already knew that. That's why you do it you selfish preek
Thanks Zake. I tried posting that same message actually as a reply to his article on "The Street's" website, from all four of my email accounts, even my UCLA Mednet account, and it was deleted each time. See I am an MD and a PhD, and more importantly, I'm not blind. For me, this investing, although its nice to make money, I would be fine without making the extra money investing using my MD and PhD as a background. I started investing in May, and in Mid August I was up 140% of my original biotech investment. Right now, I am down 10%. I'm still learning about wall street. But single handedly Feuerstein has taken away much of my profits except for the profits I had made in NBS (they did that themselves with the recent price offering took my profit away from that).
Part of the problem is I can't sit in front of the computer all day just looking to see if a negative article VNDA, INSM, CPRX, INO, and MNKD, are ones that I have had that had huge drops after one of his articles.
My issue is that people like my father in law (although he doesn't invest in biotech) he researches stocks, and invests accordingly. He is retired, has a nest egg, and is trying to make a little extra money. If he did invest in biotech (which I'm sure many investors are exactly like him), and invested in a good company like CPRX, his article just cost 40% of his investment over 3 days. Now nobody should have that power. Especially not a jerkoff who claims to know science with his poly sic degree and prior real estate work.
And why did this happen? Because a hedgefund who has millions upon millions of dollars, tells him the next small biotech company that he should "find a problem with something." Because it is a small cap, its volatile, and he always picks a stock that has had large gains, meaning its extremely vulnerable to be short circuited by MMs.
I do clinical and basic science research. It is virtually impossible to do a perfect trial. Every scientist knows this.
Make no mistake, he is taking advantage of small struggling companies, taking money from mom and pop investors, for the sake of his pocket and the pocket of the hedge funds he works for.
That's why he doesn't go after big companies, even though their clinical trials are no better than a small bio's clinical trials.
He is a hippocrite for saying CPRX is taking advantage of LEMS patients. He is a hippocrite for criticizing INSM for using a semi-quantitative measure of mycobacterial proliferation since he doesn't even know what a mycobacteria is. He is a hippocrite for taking advantage of INSM when they told him they are in a silent period.
Why not wait until INSM can answer before publishing the article? They would have answered the above question about the semi-quantitative measure easily, as well as his questions about why they presented one type of data one way and elsewhere somewhere else. Why not wait? Because now is the time to manipulate... INSM just rebounded back to its high of 16.00. Its ripe for the hedgefunds and MMs to pick it...
If you can Zake, please try posting my original post in response to his article on The Street's website to see what he says. I am curious. But after 4 attempts and using all of my IDs, I don't have any way to do it again.
Oh and by the way with INO, he had nothing bad to say. INO is so far above him science wise, he doesn't come close to understanding the science. So he just said oh they've been around 34 years form the Vancouver exchange. The same thing bashers on the boards have been saying for 6 years now. Little does he know, DNA vaccines have only been around 21 years. But his timing, like always, was perfect and cost 20+% in INOs price. That just tells me that he has no scruples, no conscience and is at the mercy of someone with money. Why doesn't he have to disclose what the Streets stance is on a company and whether anyone he works for invests in the company he is bashing? Everyone else has to.