You can run relative value analysis across the board in biotech and find single agent companies valued 2-3x higher and platform companies valued 5-10x higher, all at similar stages of product development as CTIX. The reason why CTIX is not valued much higher right now is clearly due to the lack of confidence in the CTIX management team led by Ehrlich and Menon. Both men at CTIX have been victims of negative press...perhaps justified, perhaps not...discussing their backgrounds. At the end of the day, Wall Street backs management teams...especially in biotech...where leadership needs a track record of enhancing shareholder value by either taking products to market and through exit upon a sale to a larger bio/pharma company.
Despite a promising blockbuster cancer drug in development, a potential strong psoriasis drug in development, and an antiobiotic platform recently acquired and re-ignited in several clinical trials (note the CDC's superbug warning yesterday), CTIX continues to hover around $200 million.
So, for those of us who think the pipeline is worth a hell of a lot more, but are wary of investing deeper with this management team, why should we load up right now on CTIX? Tell us why you are extremely confident and comfortable with Ehrlich and Menon running the CTIX ship...because, at the end of the day, that's who we are trusting our funds with.
Please respond if you own a big stake in CTIX.
CANN doesn't sell pot, they just help pot growers get real estate space and provide business advise. They are a real estate broker / consultant. There will be THOUSANDS of competing real estate brokers helping pot growers. In fact, every single real estate broker across the nation will be a competitor, just like any other business.
This business model is a joke. There are ZERO barriers to entry.
Honestly, I'm not short or long. But, just because one guy on CNBC mentions the stock doesn't mean it's a good buy. When you're buying, he's selling.
They will be huge once marketing really gets going...works in 15 minutes...quicker and more effective than Viagra, faster than Cialis and Levitra.
Stendra = best drug for ED
Qsymai = best drug for Weight Loss
Market cap = $700 million
SUPER STRONG BUY
Sorry, but Qsymia is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than either ARNA or OREX drug. You must not be reading all the literature. Go back and do your homework doctor.
Potentially great science for three blockbuster drugs and strong hospital associations running the clinical trials is really the ONLY thing giving me any comfort here with CTIX
But, let's face facts:
Too much dilution - 150 million + the Aspire deal - so you know there will be more dilution coming
Handful of employees
Questionable history of Leo and Menlon
Constantly pumping press releases by Leo
NO Partnerships with Big Pharma
I have a small Long position...and have wanted to load the boat, but for the above reasons. So, for all of the LONGS out there:
Tell us why we should load up?
Didn't all these guys just say the market rebound from the emerging market sell-off should be re-shorted?
From today's action, they were clearly wrong!
If they can't refute it, then badbadford59 may indeed be 100% correct and Leo will be officially called a CEO Pumper. Now, it is time for Leo and Menon to clarify their personal histories with NNVC and CTIX with clarity and facts.
When you tout your cancer therapy as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
When you tout your newly acquired antibiotic therapy as the second greatest thing since sliced bread.
When you tout your psoriasis therapy as the third greatest thing since sliced bread.
Then both executives need to refute this SA Article in the next 24-48 hours.
That is not a difficult shareholder request.
If they have nothing to hide, then they should lay out a credible argument, backed by facts, to prove it.
This Pump / Schmuck Terminator article has errors...his initial premise of the article about licensing technology from an individual who sets up a company to be a licensor and then becomes a major shareholder of the licensee is NOT a red flag...happens all the time. But, for all of his press releases touting CTIX's developments and both Leo and Menon relationship with NNVC, they should come out and defend themselves.
Leo has issues A LOT of press releases for CTIX...let's face facts. And, A LOT of those press releases are written with significant hyperbole.
Time for Leo to write another press release to explain his history and the facts to refute the Schmuck Terminator. Otherwise, he loses credibility, as does CTIX.
Does the author not realize how many biotechs license technology for development? Thousands...
In fact, most biotechs license technology from individual scientists, universities, big pharma (who has shelved or not focused on certain programs), and healthcare institutions such as the NIH.
So, the fact that NNVC licenses technology from Anil Diwan's Theracour is a NON ISSUE.
Let's call the SA Author the Schmuck Terminator.
Lost ALL CREDIBILITY with that comment.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
There's a MONSTER difference being just an online/mobile/PPV distributor of content and being the ONLY ONE who has the content.
The way I read these press releases, this isn't Netflix, which has paid huge sums of money to have exclusive content as well as their own proprietary content.
Correct me if I'm wrong....
Very disappointing quarter. For a company that's in a "hot" space, it's a non-factor, and the revenue growth is VERY WEAK.
Don't see anything game changing in this company.
So, tell us why we should own this stock? Convince me to buy and I will...because I don't see it.
Some substantial and important recent patent wins to go along with an already strong patent portfolio. Given ongoing security issues around the globe and the explosion of mobile apps, it's inevitable that corporations, airlines, and governments will be increasing looking to integrate and utilize IDN's type technologies into their daily course of operations. I see Google as the most likely acquiror of IDN given their really forward thinking of next generation technologies. The security market is huge and growing, while biometric type technologies are only just getting started.
How is ATOS going to market this test...the FDA says it's not reliable on a stand-alone basis. What clinic is going to use the test?
December 12, 2013
14:18 EDT ATOS FDA announces safety communication on mammography alternatives
In a notice posted on its website, the FDA is alerting the public, including women and health care providers, that a nipple aspirate test is not a replacement for mammography, other breast imaging tests, or breast biopsy, and should not be used by itself to screen for or diagnose breast cancer. The FDA says it is not aware of any valid scientific data to show that a nipple aspirate test by itself is an effective screening tool for any medical condition including the early detection of breast cancer or other breast disease. In its notice, the FDA notes that in February, the agency sent a warning letter to Atossa Genetics related to that company's marketing and promotion of a nipple aspirate test for uses that had not received FDA marketing clearance or approval. The FDA also noted that Atossa initiated a voluntary recall to remove its ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and the Mammary Aspiration Specimen Cytology Test from the market, with the FDA saying that it will continue to monitor, "the promotional activity of nipple aspirate test manufacturers, and keep the public and practitioners informed as new information becomes available."
From the press release:
"The OS analysis includes data on 67 events (patient deaths) out of a possible 124, whereas the PFS analysis includes data from 103 events. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics plans to continue following patients in this trial to collect more mature OS data. In the matured data from the open label, phase I trial, the Company observed a consistent benefit in both PFS and OS compared with historical controls, and on this basis thinks that it is possible that the primary OS benefit could be clarified as the phase II data mature."
So, if the Phase I trial showed long-term survival benefit improving as the data matured, why didn't IMUC take that into account in structuring the Phase II trial and the release of the data to coincide with mature data as well?
This trial seems flawed. We're talking a very difficult to treat cancer with short-term survival rate. Why would you release data after 67 / 124 people die. Naturally, if the Phase I data showed better survival data as the data matured, it would be self-destructive (as it proved last night) to release the data so soon. Maybe the majority of the remaining 50% of the population is responding to the therapy and will survive for 5 years per the Cedars-Sinai press release?
It's clear that IMUC's technology platform is not a cure given zero complete response rates, but stable disease is very valuable in such a hard to treat cancer. Too bad the design of the trial's statistical data release made it IMPOSSIBLE to show the true data on stable disease & overall survival.
Why doesn't IMUC review the biomarkers for the 50% who survived for 5-years so that the other 50% can get a different drug next time and the surviving 50% type patients are the ONLY ones who enter a Phase 3 to get I-107? We MUST start targeting / personalizing these medications better for Phase 3 trials...you'd get MUCH MUCH MUCH higher overall responses.
The FUTURE of medicine is drugs for cherry picked populations. Why doesn't IMUC research the genetic code for all 6 patients who had great responses, and then create a biomarker test for the common protein or enzyme that helps generate the positive response. THEN, all patients with gioblastoma having these traits can get 107 and have an amazing response.
This is how it will be done. Everyone is UNDERVALUING biotech firms, across the board...even after the big run this year. The entire gameplan will be changed. Big pharma and biotech will go back and review ALL failed trial results and try to identify those specific patients who actually responded. Then a targeted patient population will be given a targeted drug. There won't be trials involving hundreds of patience who's genetic make-up make success unattainable.
Buy EVERY biotech whose drug fails after they get crushed. EVERY ONE.
Yes, I just don't understand how you can have amazing progression free survival data announced two weeks ago and now get no statistical significance in overall survival rates?
The Cedars-Sinai data from 11/24 said giving ICT-107 creates long-term progression free, stable disease in 6/16 patients given the drug between May 2007 and Jan 2010. This data today is from 124 patients, a much larger pool, says the difference in progression-free survival is only two months.
So, a) Are these two different patient populations and two different trials? or b) The 11/24 data on 16 patients was a subset of the 124 patients in the larger trial? I presume IMUC's management were still blinded at 11/24 as to placebo effect and didn't just leave out from the 11/24 press release that the long-term progression free benefit was only a few months longer than placebo.
Help me understand this, because I think IMUC's management should never had produced the 11/24 press release without a comparison to placebo.