Leading baggies over the cliff.
Dont know if Ive seen somene pump so hard before.
Thanks for some reality nome.
Me? I consider it uninvestable and untradable from the day Matt simply announced ~oh that PFS we promised you? Never mind about that.
The run up to the PIII debacle was good, and there was a bit of play off of the Tumour shrinkage, but in my opinion thats all there is.
Its a coin toss on the cause of the PFS and OS in Mets between Paclitaxel, Reo, and Eastern European Trial loading or some combination of these.
I keep the stock on my watch list and check the mb infequently. The messages this latest check are just too detached from reality for someone not to step in and remind people their life savings are based on a coin toss.
Scout are you aware the trial we are discussing is for Reo in. Combination with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel?
If you think the side effects of Paclitaxal are bad, and you know that this is for Reo in combination with Paclitaxel, where does that leave you?
Nome wrote "If they are still seeing the OS move out, and don't expect it to stop until 10-12 months, this is huge."
But will it be huge for Reo or Paclitaxel?
Theres is a gient elephant in the room that noone is discussing, to the detriment of newbies and casual investors: as Brad discussed in a cc last year, the apparant improved PFS ( and by possible extension OS) could be due to the use of Paclitaxel in this taxane-naive population.
Reo investors might find themselves paying for a study that benefits Paclitaxel as a new standard of care.
How many longs do we have here vs how many stock promoters?
According to this cc, there seems to have been an agreement last year with the FDA to change from PFS to OS.
Yet we were still being encouraged by management to wait for PFS which was said to be as potentially as early as this January 2013.
Also, in what universe can an addl phase III trial be planned, approved launched and completed by 2014.
Investors are being invited to be strung along. I decline the invitation.
Scientist asked "Be nice if you could offer a "for instance"
Would anyone like to let him know about Brad's discussion concerning possible reasons for the increased PFS?
Let's have an honest adult discussion.
Or do we get Kenny and Scout talking about how Brad assured us that Reo will succeed (he did no such thing).
Scout wrote "Your comment means that Dr. Brad Thompson can make comments about Reolysin and trials without having supporting documentation. Is that what you want us to believe? Please explain"
My statement means no such thing. Brad can make statements about patients "living and living". Without need of any suppporting documentation because of the inexact nature of the statements. A patient on Reo who progresses and dies in, say 11 days kept on "living and living"
I can, like Brad "almst guarantee you PFS or better on Reo", but if I do so, how much fS or better has been "almost guaranteed"? A week? 2 weeks? If I don't tell you how long, what documentation do I need.
There is dishonesty here. People are misleading credulous, inexperienced investors who are not aware of the losses they are risking.
Anyone notice nome making jokes about holding shares into the next catalyst.
They are aughing at the longs they are herding.
Scientist, if you believe that onlybReo could be the cause of inceased PFS in the test arm, you have misunderstood the variables at play.
It will be disapointing when those who DO understand that factors other than Reo could be inceasing PFS in the test arm post in support of your misunderstanding instead of opening discussing the multiple and real factors at play.
None believes rat.
Inexperienced investors are betting life savings based on questionable claims of certainty, such as from scout and scientist.
Oncy management is on record as making no claims that Reo will succeed in clinical trials.
Not knowing that, an inexperienced or gullible investor reading this messageboard
Is encouraged to have a false confidence in Reo and a misunderstanding of the risks involved.
What Brad said about patients on Reo (they keep "living and living") is an inexact statement that can be applied to every cancer patient as it makes no claim to how long they keep living and living, or if the living and living is much longer than if they were not on Reo.
I am a scientist wrote:"... then the September effect was due entirely to Reolysin"
Are you aware that in cc's Brad has said that he does not know why the mets group has longer PFS? He suggested the condition of patients in the trial could be the reason, or that treatment w an addl chemo agent could be the reason.
When asked directly by an analyst if Reo was the reason, he flat out said he could not say.
There is a continuous drumbeat of questionable attempts to foster a sense of absolute certainty in investors that Reo is statistically efficacious.
Many longs have no idea the amount of risk they are taking with their life savings.
"... because as a Ph. III it is also a registration trial.
Further, BT is not likely to announce any related registration filing because registration filing is a normal and expected consequence of such a trial. Less"
This conflicts w management statements that an additional trial will be necessary.
"ONC would not be proceeding with a trial that they and the FDA know is useless"
And the same is true if they knew it was useful.
They do not know if Reo is statistically efficacious, they only know it appears to be active.
The question that ONCY management seems to be delaying is: is it active enough?
The decisions on the SCCHN trial cause me to question if management unecessarily delaying results.
Reading the filings, below is just one of many statements confirming the company is paying stock promoters with eventually dilutive shares:
"In May 2012, the Company issued 14,000,000 common shares to consultants pursuant to a consulting agreement (Note 11). At the time of issuance the fair value of the shares was determined to be $1,918,000 based on the quoted market price of $0.137 per share."
The company appears to me to be engaged in toxic financing activies inimical to a stable or growing PPS.
I consider the company uninvestable until its assets are transferred to a management team with better capital raising abilities.
Management knows you all have life savings in this stock and have been holding years and years.
Yet they continue to set your expectations on some data event and then move it further out.
Not a good sign.
3 words: preservation of capital.