Recent

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

Zipcar, Inc. (ZIP) Message Board

dwiggd 26 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 19, 2015 2:03 PM Member since: Mar 26, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dwiggd dwiggd May 30, 2015 4:53 PM Flag

    Thank you. Sounds very positive.

  • Reply to

    scale of happiness

    by itrizia May 29, 2015 7:56 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd May 30, 2015 5:21 PM Flag

    I wish I were in that position, my cost basis is better, but my investment balance is somewhat lower. Somewhere between your ranch and retirement is my new car, but I'll take the win both for myself and against cancer.

  • Reply to

    fda stop ...

    by acatalyst84 Jun 1, 2015 12:00 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 1, 2015 12:05 PM Flag

    No drug is going to be approved based on 21 patients (method B) in an unblinded phase 1 trial. I'm optimistic that we'll get there, but realism is critical.

  • dwiggd by dwiggd Jun 1, 2015 1:25 PM Flag

    I ran through my available posts over there way to quickly, but if anyone is there and here, please point out the following to Pyrr, again:

    That at least 12 of the still living patients were enrolled prior to the summer of last year, so they can't all be method A.

    That since we don't know what the difference between Method A and B is, they could both be variations on BCG/inf-y.

    Or that the paper could have been written on only one method even though both were in use.

    And that he's still ignoring the fact that his claimed switch between method A and B has to have happened at 13.8 months ago, when 4 patients were treated at the same time, and thus there is no possible "changeover date" from method A to B, and both have to have overlapped.

    His theories just don't match up with the timeline.

  • Reply to

    Inclusion Criteria

    by momentum2play Jun 1, 2015 12:20 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 1, 2015 1:31 PM Flag

    The trial started at 3 months. Clinical trials dot gov still shows three months, so I can't say exactly when, but it can't have been earlier than June of 2014, as what looks like some related changes were made at that time.

    Therefore, at least the top 13 survivors were enrolled under the original criteria.

  • Reply to

    IHub-Pyrr

    by dwiggd Jun 1, 2015 1:25 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 1, 2015 4:10 PM Flag

    It really only has valid points if he is right about a strict A then B timeline, which doesn't appear to match reality.

  • Reply to

    checking out this stock

    by c78596998785 Jun 2, 2015 7:28 AM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 11:49 AM Flag

    If you were actually doing any significant research, you would have noticed the recent (April) direct purchase of $40 million worth of shares by Woodford. The final chunk of that purchase is still in the first page of Yahoo headlines. We're up about a dollar from that price,

  • One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that at this point we should get new information on the P1 patients on a fairly regular basis. Since this is not public information, hopefully NWBio will continue to update us as time goes on. The results are fairly impressive already, but if the patients (especially the method B patients) continue to do well, and the survival chart continues to stretch out, that will be a continuous supply of useful information.

  • Reply to

    Ongoing information:

    by dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 3:42 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 4:20 PM Flag

    They didn't do continual updates before because they got blasted for the one time they did. At this point the P1 is public information, so there is no question of releasing additional data being irregular.

  • Reply to

    Ongoing information:

    by dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 3:42 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 4:39 PM Flag

    And you are missing mine. No, they don't share data they aren't permitted to, and they aren't known for oversharing.

    That being said, they very specifically did try to share Direct P1 data early, and got in trouble for it. Now that there's no question of that, they're in a position to share that information on a regular basis.

    And I'm not saying I expect daily updates, but I think it's reasonable that, whenever they have a conference or press release for other purposes that we can expect to see current data on this trial.

  • Reply to

    Ongoing information:

    by dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 3:42 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 2, 2015 5:01 PM Flag

    When I say "got in trouble" I mean "were the subject of multiple attack articles and took a hit to the stock price". And that's not me thinking it, that's what actually happened.

    And no, they were under no obligation not to reveal data, but that doesn't change what actually happened. See their press releases for around mid-may last year, and Adam Feurstein's articles posted in response.

  • dwiggd dwiggd Jun 4, 2015 10:52 AM Flag

    Another useful tidbit for synchronization: May 14 2014 press release: 19 patients to date who have received 3 injections. Realizing that there are two patients who never received three injections, the timeline is still a little uncertain, but I think that puts May 14th somewhere between the 13 month patient and the 12 month patient.

  • Reply to

    About those 3 DEAD in Method B ---

    by abeta4238 Jun 4, 2015 4:19 PM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 4, 2015 4:46 PM Flag

    Two of them died within two months or so. One of them died in barely a month. Almost definitely that is the deceased individual who only recieved two injections, and the treatment never really took hold. I would say the same is likely true of the other who probably received 3 injections.

    The third one is almost definitely the one remaining individual in the B group that didn't have stable disease by week eight. That patient is also apparently an adult onset Desmoplastic small-round-cell tumor (I think that's what Desmo means), which is exceedingly rare, and agressive (it's usually a juvenile cancer. I'm not saying that's the reason DCVax didn't work, but of the cancers on the list, it's definitely the most unusual that I'm aware of.

  • dwiggd dwiggd Jun 4, 2015 5:12 PM Flag

    It's almost impossible to produce reasonable median OS numbers in this case, because we don't know how long they'd already been in treatment, nor the state of the disease when they entered the trial. What we do know is that all of them had completed standard treatment, and had not seen significant improvement. Most of them probably had at most stable disease, and more likely progressive disease coming into the trial. For those enrolled early in the trial, their doctors had given them at least three months to live and I believe that late in the trial, that was changed to a minimum of six months, but in both cases those numbers are a best guess by their doctor, as can be seen by the fact that four individuals died in less than three months.

    On the one hand, most of the patients enrolled were in reasonably good shape for their stage of disease and treatment (ECOGS 0-2 early in the trial, 0-1 late in the trial. On the other hand, they were extremely late in the disease. Without personalized case histories, it really is impossible to make a call here.

  • dwiggd dwiggd Jun 4, 2015 5:22 PM Flag

    Unfortunately, we don't know how long the patients had already survived with the disease before they entered the trial.

    They might have been on chemo for two months before the inoperable tumors progressed, or they might have been on it for several years.

  • dwiggd dwiggd Jun 5, 2015 4:36 PM Flag

    Realistically: Shorts are people who sell shares they don't actually own. They do this (legally) by borrowing the shares from someone who does own them (typically in a margin account). They are betting that the share price will go down sufficiently that when they return the shares, they can buy them at a lower price to do so. The profit is on the difference between the price they buy them at and the price they have to pay to return them. (Note that "naked" short selling does occur, when they sell shares that don't actually exist, this is generally, but not always illegal).

    There are benefits to this in the general market, as it improves liquidity and helps prevent runaway share prices if a stock is over-valued. However, it is extremely subject to manipulation. Among other things, short selling artificially creates a greater supply of shares since both the person borrowed from and the person who purchased from the short seller are holding the same shares. This increases supply and lowers demand as a result, causing lower prices.

    In addition, since short sellers in theory have no limit to their risk (a long, someone holding the stock can only go to zero, a short can lose as much as the price can go up), there is a strong incentive not to get caught when a stock is running up. In this stock in particular, there is a fairly strong belief that shorts have been attempting to artificially drive the price down whenever good news is reported.

  • dwiggd dwiggd Jun 5, 2015 4:37 PM Flag

    Finally, and what all of us longs are hoping for, is a short squeeze. Since there is no limit to the risk, there is a strong incentive for short sellers to buy shares to close out their position before the price goes up to sharply (this is often enforced by the brokerage: since the purchase is typically out of a margin account, the brokerage can issue a margin call if the price gets to high). If there is heavy short interest in a stock, this will tend to greatly accelerate the rate of increase, since demand from shorts can be significantly greater than the number of shares typically sold. In this case, something like 20% of the shares on the open market have been sold short, meaning that if a short squeeze happens, it could cause the stock to run up hugely.

  • Reply to

    Fraud

    by michonne78 Jun 17, 2015 9:15 AM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 17, 2015 12:32 PM Flag

    You're assuming that the limit on the number of injections equates to progressing disease. You have no more evidence for that than you are claiming we do.

    I can think of several other reasons off the top of my head why injections might be stopped at that point. To go with the most positive one to counter yours (as the most negative) maybe by 16 weeks they couldn't find any non-necrotic tissue to inject. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's just as supported as your argument.

    What we do know is that every single one of these patients was late stage 4, having already undergone multiple treatments that failed. Given that information, the survival data we do have looks extremely positive.

    We also know (contrary to your statements over on iHub) that at least some of the B patients were injected under the original criteria, and it's likely that the split between original and later criteria is even between the two, and yet B is apparently much more likely than A to produce long term survival.

    Therefore, your speculations are generally less evidence based than ours, and you can go away now.

  • Reply to

    Fraud

    by michonne78 Jun 17, 2015 9:15 AM
    dwiggd dwiggd Jun 17, 2015 12:54 PM Flag

    Wow, you just go deeper and deeper. Point to exactly where MDA says that about this trial.

    And I didn't say I thought it was likely. I do think it is just about as likely as your theory, however.

    Stage 4 does include locally advanced, and the criteria was stage 4, so that's a straight up lie on your part.

    6 of A patients died within 6 months. So did 2 of 3 B patients. In case you hadn't noticed, that's exactly the same ratio. Unlike you, I argue facts, not made up guesses.