They made up the data and used a bunch of fancy scientific acronyms to toy with stupid investors. Just like Celladon buddy, Does anybody think these patients actually exist?
Agreed stock rigger-Look at this stupid claim BLUE made:
Based on historical clinical observations in patients with SCD, bluebird bio believes that individuals who achieve ≥ 30 percent of anti-sickling hemoglobin (HbAT87Q + HbF) have the potential to reduce or eliminate the serious and life-threatening events associated with SCD.
What a bunch of fools and child molesters claiming they have a platform that can cure multiple diseases. Surely you'll make millions shorting these scandalous hose bags. Short premarket all you can because
Abstract Highlights (Data as of February 2015):
Beta-thalassemia: Beta-thalassemia major subjects (1201 and 1202) remained transfusion independent at 14 months and 11 months, respectively
Sickle Cell Disease: This subject (1204) entered the trial receiving chronic transfusions and began the process of being weaned from transfusions after day 37, receiving the last transfusion on day 88
Increasing production of HbAT87Q; the first-ever SCD patient treated with gene therapy (subject 1204) had a HbAT87Q level of 24% at 4.5 months follow up, compared to an HbAT87Q level of 9.6% at three months post-transplant
Note that this subject did not engraft until after month one, so their level of HbAT87Q production at months three and 4.5 are actually months two and 3.5, after engraftment
At 4.5 months follow up, total anti-sickling hemoglobin (HbAT87Q + HbF) was 31.6%
Subject 1204 has not had any hospitalizations for SCD-related complications post-transplant
Safety: No subject has experienced a drug product-related adverse event, and integration site analyses demonstrate highly polyclonal reconstitution without clonal dominance
Based on historical clinical observations in patients with SCD, bluebird bio believes that individuals who achieve ≥ 30 percent of anti-sickling hemoglobin (HbAT87Q + HbF) have the potential to reduce or eliminate the serious and life-threatening events associated with
Thanks gentlemen. It's nice when something relevant about BLUE is actually discussed. I was hoping the earlier technical discussion would have taken off. By the way I agree with geneman's observation that stopping transfusions as an endpoint was a pretty big negative. It upped the bar quite high tomorrow.
Must suck to be you. So agitated and anxious you can't remember what you posted in the title. So ICPT or RCPT? Anyone would be stressed with dumb #$%$ shorting strategy you employ. Any hair falling out? Heh, hehe.
Let's see if we can mirror stok rigger's strategy. His name rhymes nicely with some racial epithets by the way. Who knows if it is part of his overall plan.
Only short an area that you have no understanding of.
Target things of no relevance whatsoever to the price target of the stock.
Short only when there is a game changing technology involved.
I can't name them all. It's the almanac for worst reasons to short a stock. Congrats rigger you're part of a bible that people will read as a cautionary tale.
Ghastly not even up 6 in premarket because of these clowns.
Their strategy of posting unrelated and incredibly stupid rants every 10 seconds is working.
There has been a ton of competing technologies and new IPO's coming out. The field of medicine is developing at such a rapid pace it is hard to pick who will be the definite winners. EPZM, SGMO, etc. appear to have cost saving competing shortcuts and other advantages whereas reports of "cures" for diseases that were once intransigent to treatment are not rare sightings. Many of these breakthroughs use novel strategies not close to commercialization, being that many promising technologies are at the investigational research level.
The complication is that there appears no way to pick sure winners long term in medicine, as some of the advances companies like BLUE and SGMO have made may become obsolete before they become commercially viable.
Nice to see an in depth technical discussion instead of short prattle. What do you guys consider the safest, technically elegant, most commercially viable strategy to use for gene editing? What's your view of what has the most theoretical potential in medicine?
Don't forget to drop the mike after saying it's the ultimate, best-est ever.
They are buying hand over fist.
I probably shouldn't shout.
get busy spam a lot
humongous amounts. You got 4 points today after dozens of posts- considering all the margin calls you've gotten making you cover at nosebleed levels, just unfair. Give it up, it ain't coming back down.
By the way I hope it does.
Thinks he's moving the market.