It's a wonderful creation. For individuals like myself, who sometimes have a compulsion to reply to stupid posts, I heartily recommend putting a poster on ignore instead. It doesn't always work, as I sometimes am drawn in to reply to an illiterate buffoon -- but what stupidity I cannot see, I don't worry about. Cheers,
SRPT had a tiny study -- and that's all it had -- on 12 patients. On that basis, it shot up. PRAN has a small study, and trial results to come that are much more significant, AND lots of supporting studies on metals dyshomeostasis. Last but not least, SRPT is focused on a small market == Duchenne MS. Prana is focused on a potentially monster market. For these reasons, I sometimes puzzle over why SRPT had all the buzz, and PRAN did not.
To each his own. But I have no idea what it means to say that "HD is caused by genetics and not the metal buildups."
Obamacare is to the Baltic Dry Index what a fish is to a bicycle. Focus on the issues, buddy!
As far as I can tell -- I looked at some of your past posts -- you've never said anything useful on this board. Never. Congrats -- or something. Time to put you on . . . ignore. Cheers.
I'm no mathematician, but I'm extremely dubious about some of the arguments about comparing positive beta to negative beta when it applies to developmental biotechs with binary events (success or failure). Look at CLSN. It too had rising volume, rising price, lots of volatilty -- but generally in a highly positive direction -- and then trial results came out and its price plunged plunged plunged. (I lost about $6,000 on that one, so I remember). Using the logic above, CLSN was a super investment up to t-1 (where t is the time test results were made public) but a horrible one from t onwards.
Correct. But I would argue that if you are a savvy investor, you would buy a limited amount of stock at this price for risk/ return purposes. Let's say, for example, that you would only risk 1-2% of your portfolio initially on this. If the stock tanks, you've lost a manageable amount, but if you hit it big, this initial 1% of your portfolio will reap big returns. Half of my return on KERX came from a smallish initial investment, another 25% from what I bought on day one of its spike in price, and only about 25% of the rest from what I bought later.
It's amazing. When posters have a chance of saying something reasonable -- say, that the stock will increase in price 25% to 75% -- they like to state, instead, that the stock will quadruple in price. Let me tell you something. It probably won't quadruple.
I get tired of this argument, for the simple reason that I cannot remember a SINGLE commenter, like you, giving a negative review of PBT2 based on an evaluation of the science. Not a single post. It is the science that counts, and if you want to take a whack at a negative post, go ahead. Here, I'll even help you (though I am most certainly not the best person to try). The argument for PBT2 and Alzheimers in particular, in addition to relying on mouse models, relies heavily on one small study of PBT2 on humans which showed promise. This study is key. One skeptical review of this study said that "The trial of PBT2 showed it was safe after 12 weeks of treatment but demonstrated no overall significant effect on cognition or memory (Cochrane Summaries). But this conclusion has been hotly contested by others, who note that on two measures of Executive Function, patients improved.
See? It is not hard to write a skeptical post. I will simply add here that if you truly are a skeptic, you would dig into the data in the study above. You would then discover that this 12 week study had as primary endpoint safefty, and that patients were on 50 mg and 250 mg doses as well as on placebo. The current study, whose results we are waiting for, is dosing many more patients at 250 mg for a longer period of time. The skeptic would also note that since the 12 week study came out, there have been many studies coming out that would seem to lend some credence to Prana's approach. Finally, the skeptic would have to ask the question: why would a professor at Harvard (Tanzi) put his prestige and credibility on the line by supporting Prana's approach? If you know anything about researchers, it is that credibility is a a very precious commodity -- it takes time to build, but it can be lost in an instant if the person is perceived to be a huckster interested in profits over science.
I don't think $10 is too high. Far from it. But I see that for whatever reason, PRAN does not yet have the buzz that many other developmental biotechs does, and this affects prize. But the big picture is that I have high hopes for this company. I just like to leaven my optimism with what I believe is hard-headed realism. I would love to be proven wrong, and to see the price shoot up.
Oh come on! There are plenty of us who have sunk money into this company and have high hopes for it. But let's be realistic. A $10 superspike? When? If you have followed PRAN, you know that it has risen a good amount over the last two years, but a superspike before trial news in the first quarter of 2014 is highly unlikely. Best management in the business? Again, hyperbole.
The big picture is that this stock has gone from prices in the 1.50 range with anemic volume (there used to be days where 40,000 was traded) to today's price at far higher average volumes. There has been steady progress, a steady publication of relevant information on MPACS, a steady accumulation of reasons to like this company.As is, this is a woefully undervalued stock with great potential. It may blast off -- in the first quarter of 2014. Till then, I expect a steady trend upwards till results are made public.
Yep. If people complain about volatility in developmental biotechs, they should not be investing in them, period. It is one of the more absurd "criticisms" of such stocks.
is that traders see the low trade volume and try to manipulate it by messing around with the longs. My advice: be clinical and cold, evaluate the stock on its scientific merits, pay little attention to idle chitter chatter from short term traders, and hold.
It's now December 11. Your estimate of price direction is off. Right now it is 33.00, and will probably ebb down slightly. But it looks as if your short-term forecasting is off . . .
We must think of the stupid people because they keep ramming their idiotic ideas down our throat. Jerry, go live on an island somewhere without a computer. Some of us like this to be a board about stocks, not people's weird fears and obsessions and inability to get along with gays.
What a question. . . . who cares? If you are in it for the long haul, you simply don't care, because you have done your DD and don't panic over minor ups and downs.