Eh. The reason is to wait for a rebound and see the stock slowly appreciate in price -- which is possible.
Nope, I entered when the great majority of people were panicking about ALU. I don't invest according to Cramer. Nor does Goldmann Sachs, which gave it a lifeline.
I've been in since $1.07. Bought the rest at $1.31. Not terribly worried about these relatively short-term issues.
a) her name is YELLEN b) Yellen is mostly irrelevant to the success or failure of Prana. Prana rises and falls on its science -- not on the timetable of the tapering of quantitative easing.
Stop whining, stop trying out new aliases like a failed drag queen trying a new hairdo, stop posting your trivial posts.
Eh. You are generalizing from what is generally true to understand a particular case. But generalizations don't always fit particular cases. In this case, I'm lukewarm about your argument. I don't think hubris is the issue. In Alzheimer's research, the failures are legion, and the reason is not simply hubris.
The individuals linked to Prana are widely linked to the relevant research networks -- and that is what counts here, the relevant SCIENCE networks. for fundamentally, Prana lives and dies on its science. New insights? Prana scientists, and those associated with Prana, and all those who do work in this particular field, have generated all sorts of insights.
Where a partner would be useful would be in funding. Prana could then fund larger studies. The last Alzheimer's one was a reasonable gamble for a small company -- but the gamble did not work. I assume that the reason why Prana has not reached out for partnerships is that the larger companies want too much of the eventual revenue for little invested. Thus, I suspect hubris is not the problem. The key problem is probably that big pharma wants far too much eventual revenue for too little investment.
First of all, MD Anderson is a great place.
Second, I doubt that a doctor at MD Anderson rejected the idea that a person should enter a trial at MD Anderson that addressed the very problem -- pancreatic cancer -- at hand. Pancreatic cancer kills at a very high rate. The chance of survival is low. I have a hard time believing that a doctor would tell a person to not enroll in the trial. People believe all sorts of things when doctors speak to them. It could well be true that the patient was spooked by all the talk that trials may not work, the patient still might die, etc. But the bottom line is that for pancreatic cancer, how many doctors are going to tell a patient to just die?
By the way, I am not a medical doctor. But I had a brother in law who was cared for at MD Anderson for cancer. He died, alas.
I should add that one piece of data is useful to know -- the numbers of patients, when enrolled, etc, as that shows how well a trial is on track.
In terms of NWBO, I think the problem is less with NWBO and more with the fact that investors don't seem to understand how trials work. You can't release any information before pre-determined trial endpoints except, for example, on safety. Raw data is tricky -- what if there are data anomalies that stem from incorrect data input? (Yes, this happens.) What use it is to say that "no news to report" when that is ALWAYS true with trials? I am less interest in updates on actual trials than in updates on reasons for lags in reporting of *analysis* of results.
I like what I see, of course, but we are all hanging on for news. The bottom line is that we have not heard news on either the next phase of the HD trials, nor have we heard any explanation for the strange AD results. Unlike July 2013, we don't know of two major catalysts coming up. We can expect to hear one definite piece of good news (info on the next HD trial) at some point, so that is positive. But the wild card is what we will learn about interpretation of the AD results. That uncertainty should limit the upside. How much? Beats me.
For the life of me, what dredge up this old spat and bring it to the top of the board? Anyhow, I may have blasted you, and vice-versa, but both of us have stayed with the stock. Neither of us has paid attention to the ridiculous bashers. Both of us see something in it. You have zillions more than I, that's the difference. (Then again, professors don't get paid like those on Wall Street.) I re-entered at 1.48 -- great timing. The past month and a half have been a sweet recovery. Good luck to you.
I appreciate some of your other posts -- but in this case, during a trial, why would lead P.I. of a trial even express enthusiasm? The correct attitude in public statements is to be factual and neutral.