Hi, you're that overbearing moderator from iflub and now you've come over to yahoo to repeat your same tired old message. Forgive me for questioning your agenda.
What's the point of diagnosing any disease where there are only treatments for the symptoms but no cure?
If I was diagnosed with AZ using a simple blood test. I would probably be eager to start treatment with any of the currently approved drugs for AZ symptoms:
Drug name Brand name Approved For FDA Approved
1. donepezil Aricept All stages 1996
2. galantamine Razadyne Mild to moderate 2001
3. memantine Namenda Moderate to severe 2003
4. rivastigmine Exelon Mild to moderate 2000
5. tacrine Cognex Mild to moderate 1993
Source: Alz d-o-t or g
bballgm & berry - thanks for sharing your thoughts, that was helpful.
Re: "optimization and design of experiment" (another new phrase for me) -- I assume the modeling/optimizing process is involved and math-intensive and I wouldn't expect that phase to happen until after July 31st for any of these tests (?)
Any thoughts on how much improvement is to be expected (a range maybe) over that raw data which showed 78% accuracy? With tests like these, in general, is there an average improvement in accuracy to be expected via modeling or optimization -- say +10 to +20% accuracy improvement provided that the underlying science is sound which I believe lympro has shown? Or is it that every test is unique?
Hoping I get the chance to add a bit the next 2 weeks. Thank you.
I think expectations may be too high for the type of lympro news expected at C4CT. And we could see pps pull back after a run-up to the eom lympro update.
bballgm, in another thread you said "Wait until they have all of their improvements included, and a optimized model....and they will run it again. This should be the top line data they will be presenting at C4CT (at least that's what I'm gathering)."
How do we know they won't be reporting more raw data vs. optimized? Mgmt. seems to be proceeding very carefully, taking this one step at a time, winning over scientists who may have been skeptical about lympro and meanwhile we all want to jump ahead to the final optimized results, it seems to me.
I may be completely wrong. Fwiw, I have no intention of selling anytime soon and am trying to gauge when to add a bit more.
rr, I think what you described is a possible outcome, maybe the most likely one, I dunno. I agree that .20 sure seems inevitable. We'll get there, maybe more patience required though. Under .10 does seem less likely now. But the .115 to .125 range seems possible to me (hope so, I'll grab more).
I'm not expecting huge revenue guidance in August since publicly GC has been conservative/cautious so far re: lympro's potential, and why change that now. I'm not sure they're going to announce the *optimized* lympro results at C4CT which is what the market is waiting for and we were promised a partnership by end of summer which is Sept. 21. That'll be a big deal when it happens, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the new comers and a lot of the momentum traders bailed after rev. guidance. since "end of summer" is a less concrete catalyst to trade around than AAIC or C4CT which both have firms dates attached.
It seems to me that GC's lympro focus really has been on the science just as he has told us and that mgmt has been very methodical so far about releasing lympro data in such a way that builds confidence with KOL and shows the world that little ambs has a serious scientific team and is not just trying to rush a half-baked alz. test to market.
Btw, the enthusiasm police on these MBs give you too a hard time, imo. I think you have your emotional ups and downs like the rest of us and I've never minded that, fwiw, I've enjoyed reading your posts here. It's the handful of disingenuous mb commenters that I find a little annoying.
smittysghost aka solantey aka westcoastguynca aka all your other twitter and mb aliases -
your comments remind me of a line from Claude Rains as Mr. Dryden in Lawrence of Arabia:
"A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it."
On here and other message boards you dismiss the suggestion that you could have any influence on shareholders' opinion but your constant bashing or pumping (depending on your current trading position) via your many aliases suggests that you believe the opposite.
Truth is sort of important in life. Maybe give it a try?
I think people need to relax and wait to see what GC writes on Monday.
@nomorere, I disagree. A change in a stock price tells you nothing about the CEO’s performance. I’m a value investor. If I believed that stock price always represents current fair value of a company then I wouldn’t be buying individual stocks. I’d go buy an index fund and make my 8% gain per year which is the U.S. market’s historical average return.
I know that this 40% pps drop was painful for some but people need to consider what’s happened in the last 30 days:
July 1 AMBS closed @ .102
July 29 AMBS hit a high of .196 ... up 92% from from July 1
August 1 AMBS closed @ .114 ... up 11.7% from July 1
We’re up over 11% since the beginning of July!!!
A week ago everyone on these message boards was talking about MoneyRunners’ involvement (a pump and dump outfit that has manipulated ambs stock in the past) so a lot of us attributed that 90%+ run-up in large part to those guys. Not to our CEO's comments. After AAIC, I said I thought we’d see more raw data @ C4CT which we did. I expected confusion, selling from MR and an opportunity to buy more at these levels. Sorry, but I rarely get to say ‘I told you so’ and don’t want to miss this chance. ;-) cheers, glta
you said "As the CEO of a Company whose stock is publicly traded, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to do whatever he can to improve/increase share value. That he let the share price plummet, indicates he screwed up by allowing information to be presented that was deleterious to the stock price. "
Whoever he is, he's posted some challenging questions for GC on seeking alpha. And an SA commenter asked him if lympro sensitivity/specificity numbers would improve using multivariate analysis. Fibonacci's response:
" Absolutely! ... When multiple disease markers are measured on an individual, the information obtained from these markers can be combined to diagnose the disease. The idea is to choose linear combinations of these markers in order to optimize diagnostic accuracy. Specifically, the accuracy index to be maximized is the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic ROC curve. Such multivariate analysis is routinely done in many fields, astronomy, medicine (cancer diagnosis) etc.
Kirby's slide-12 with CD19 data was a jaw dropping moment. Why? Because that data comes from a mere single (I repeat, single) disease marker, ie. CD19. And yet it had a p-value of 0.0104 (meaning, very highly significant finding that cannot be attributed to mere chance). On Slide-13, look at the ROC plot for CD19. The Area Under Curve (AUC) is freaking 80% (with just a single disease marker, CD19) and the p-value is a staggering p=0.003.
AMBS is going to combine at least 6 biomarkers by forming their linear combinations and maximize the area under the ROC curve. From what I know, LymPro is on track to cross 93% spec/sens numbers.
An average investor on a stock market can not be expected to know medicine/biostatistics in great detail. Kirby's slides were ok if presented to medical audience, but not ok when presenting to investor audience. That is where AMBS got disconnected from its investors and the market punished it.
Please share this info with your social contacts. "
chrisdc - true. I had to read some of the comments here to understand what the heck multivariate/univariate is.
GC did make an effort to put lympro results in layman's terms in this blog entry... "the fundamental biology is shining through without the need for fancy math that is the hallmark of multivariate analyses in diagnostics." I dunno, maybe translating scientific-speak without sounding condescending is harder than we might think.
dotcom, thanks for asking fib about this. I'm curious to know more about fibonacci1170's background. His answer seemed reasonable to me, but I don't have a science background.
re: cannolo - someone mentioned that here, a mia spiegazione è troppo goffo per ripetere
grazie (that's all the Italian I speak)
infinite_wisdumb - you've seen fibonacci's recent SA comment on the data. He's very impressed with it, what's your take on his comment?
From reading your comments I somehow assumed you had an advanced science degree, possibly that you're in biotech. I'm curious to know what field you're in. Not interested in taking an unfair shot at you, just want to understand you better. Thanks.
infinite, thanks and good luck to you. I copied fibonacci's comment today from his seeking alpha blog post and posted it here. It's in the ymb topic called "fibonacci1170" posted Aug 2, 2014 5:37 PM.
I took it from the comment section underneath fib's Aug 1 SA blog entry called "AMBS Must Come Clean To Shareholders" which you might be interested in reading as well -- it's fibonacci's reply to a question from ymb commenter dotcom and it can all be found in the free blog section of SA -- I don't subscribe to SA either. Cheers.
From Gerald's July 17 blog "Understanding Data Presented at AAIC and Why Amarantus is Well Positioned Heading into #C4CT":
In poster #2, we showed the initial studies conducted in the labs of PLS for Version 2 LymPro, using a total number of 44 patients. The data showed that using the best cell type response (CD4 cells), we achieved an accuracy of 81%. Beyond that single data point, accuracy readings for the next best responses had accuracy ratings individually between 70% and 80%. These are univariate results, not using any statistical modeling methods at all. The reason why we are so happy with this, beyond the specific 81% number in the topline section, is because what this is showing, without any shadow of a doubt, is that CCD is clearly a critical component of the disease, and we are able to identify it with high statistical significance across all cell types tested of interest in the blood.
We chose not to conduct a huge amount to statistical modeling because we have clean data being generated at BD that will be available in the very near future that will give us strong raw analysis that will much improve the multivariate modeling process using individual markers that have already demonstrated to have statistically significant differences in AD vs. other dimentias under sub-optimal analytical conditions.. From our standpoint, starting with 5 different cell types from 4 lymphocyte families (CD8 and CD4 and derivatives of CD3), and generally measuring the data using an actual raw statistic of median fluorescence intensity as opposed to a derivative of such a measure, we are starting with the truest and best raw data that will form the basis of our model building. We know that we will be able to get much better and cleaner raw data from BD that will give us greater confidence ahead of spending the time to establish the important statistical models needed.
Because BP would rather wait 6-7 weeks to see the data even if it means paying more to a potential partner later. They are risk averse, that's the way it works.
Bif_j, there's been a lot of noise on these MBs lately, it's been hard to keep track of the relevant info. I'm still not sure whether iflub guy believes what he says is true or is just out to manipulate for his own gain. Or paid to do it.
In all the commotion lately one thing some people seem to have overlooked is that the science behind lympro is valid. That's kind of of a BIG DEAL for us and the future of AD research! Personally, I think GC is taking a lot of undeserved flak at the moment. He's said that the science is his focus right now and not the share price, if I'm paraphrasing correctly. That's fine with me - the science here is for real. And if a lot of short term traders with no interest in this company are upset after last week because they don't care to understand the company whose stock they're flipping then that's their fault, not GC's, imo. We have a bright future ahead, pretty cool.
Great response from GC.
SmallCapBio @SmallCapBio · 4h
@G_Commish wake up Gerald...YOu are personally responsible for the pps dropping 40%...step down NOW!!!
@G_Commish @SmallCapBio I'm sure the stock pumping group that just got indicted had nothing to do with it. Follow the science - it will be the judge.
Enough already. Some folks here just want management to hold their hand. It isn't GC's fault that so many don't understand the data.
If AMBS had not been artificially pumped in recent weeks to .19+ there would be far less complaining right now. It look like you can thank MR for that spike in pps.
On Friday morning while you were either selling or waiting for a reassuring updates from mgmt and from Jason Napodano I was buying this under .09. I predicted this drop earlier on this mb and for once I was right.