Here is one of my first scuffles with watson on Sept. 23, 2013: "Watsonhelper, don't forget the Novartis/MANF/Diabetes press release you said would come out within days a couple of weeks ago! I know I haven't. You didn't mention that above, perhaps it slipped your mind. It's alright for you to make guesses...we all do it...its just that most of us don't do it with the claim of special knowledge others aren't privy to. It's all in fun, I get it."
Then, here is watson's reply back to me. Professor, he thought I needed "meds" too, just like you've said!!
1 Reply to riskreturn168; watsonhelper • Sep 23, 2013 12:04 PM
"I haven't forgot anything, risk. I don't think anything is in fun to you, I think you are disgusted with life and look for negativity in everything, even a conversation as you just did once more. Fortunately there are plenty of medications for that. I actually would be hurt if you didn't reply to one of my messages. I stand by everything I said, so there may be a delay, nothing terribly new with that in life. Why don't you post to my past messages for more accuracy rather than blindly shooting your own dissertation of events in another spot to easily negate me. IfI were Gerald, I could just tell you right before the release, right? I didn't know I needed to update you on my posts,
I will keep that in mind." Our relationship at this point was rocky, and it did ultimately get better, but not until after Las Vegas.
Professor, have you ever been to Las Vegas? Watson sure seems to know it well. I was just reminiscing about my trip to Vegas last year on Sept. 27th through the 29th. Watson and I were going to meet, but it never happened. Here is an interesting post of his on the 27th where he was trying to prove to me that he was there in Vegas: "risk; tell me what name your registered under in a PM with Setton. I don't see a Ludlow there. I am at Barrett Jackson watching cars. I played Roulette with Tom dealing at Mandalay, Blackjack with Sandy. The new Ferris Wheel looks incredible. The skidmarks on the Ford track in turn 3 are awesome, how bout the vette and Boss at Mandalay's entrance? Tell me any other specifics you'd like to know. Obviously you doubt me, tell me something reasonable on the strip only someome present would know. Have at it? You want proof I have contrived stories, try hard, much harder." Over the last year as I have reflected on watson's identity, the tone of this post has stuck in my mind for some reason. I thought you might find it interesting, also.
I did not call you a basher. I just mentioned that your name sounds like an STD.
Mr. Gonorrhea: Have you heard of Beckton Dickenson? They validated the science behind the LymPro science and the multivariant test results in the 90 & 92% range for spec & sens. You are an ignorant "soft basher" throwing out doubts that have no basis in fact. Get lost.
Terry, I agree with your frustration over the poor communication of the LymPro process. I have criticized Gerald on this point before. But, the shareholders do bear some of the blame. Gerald wrote an extensive blog on this stuff last month and yet I fear it may have gone over our heads. Here is my answer as to why 5 univariant biomarkers in the 70s and 80s ends up in the 90s when you combine them. Lets pretend we have a test that is right 50% of the time in measuring something. What if we were able to take another test that measured the same thing, and it too was right 50% of the time. If you were able to take both tests and both tests said you were positive, you would now now with 75% probability that the positive results is accurate. (You multiply the two tests probabilities together.) Imagine if you had 5 tests that were each 50% accurate. If all 5 tests came back positive, you would have a number above 90% probability that your "positive" was an accurate reading. LymPro has 5 such biomarker variants. Each one is above 70% in accuracy. But when you get a positive in all 5 variants, you get a pretty high number, maybe above 95%. I doubt this answer will please scientists, but I believe it to be roughly true. And, this bridge study is a small sample size, less than 100. Another validation study will be performed in our partners lab (160 patients). The larger and larger sample sizes we get, the more we'll be able to hone our accuracy above 95%.
Gerald has put his stake in the ground regarding LymPro commercialization in 2014! Before he can do that, he has said our partner will need to complete a 3 month validation study (160 people) in their lab before we can commercialize. Therefore, our new partner would need to begin that validation test by September 15th to end it 3 months later on December 15th, in time to commercialize this year. If we know the partner must start the test in September, then that means we'll know who the partner is in September, probably in the first half, a week or so after we get the Lympro data release. So while Gerald hasn't put in specific date for these LymPro catalysts, the time line is pretty straight forward. I think in Tuesday's CC Gerald will be saying: "Runners get on your marks......get set........GO! Let's hope there's no false starts. But that happens. The time line between the CC on Sept. 2nd, where "early qualitative revenue guidance" will be given, and the data release soon thereafter, and the partnership announcement soon after that.....most likely will all have to happen before the Sept. 22nd Shareholder Meeting in SF. That is one jam packed three weeks!! There could be some last minute delays to add drama. I don't know what they'd be....but these things are nail bitters. We stand to triple our pps in the next 3 weeks! An anxiety price must be paid ahead of time for those who load up on shares now. Now is the time.
Another distinction we need to make when given LymPro numbers is if they are comparing Alzheimer's patients with Healthy People, or whether they're being compared to people with other forms of dementia. We can't just rely on our favorite metric of spec & sens numbers in the 90s without making these important distinctions about the data being presented. The sens & spec 90s numbers is a convenient way for non-science people who are here for the investment to talk about messy science stuff....but unless we want another 45% haircut in the future when Lympro data is being presented, we need to raise the level of science in our mb discussions. I really hope some people who know more about this than I do can help here. I think we need science people to dumb it down a little for us...not too dumb....but not too professorial, either. Right in between! We need this because shareholders react after data releases in very emotional ways....fueled by message board comments by flippers with dishonest, greedy motives to profit off our ignorance.
Did you know that Eli Lilly's Amivid, our current competition, only tests for one variable or biomarker? ( Univariant) LymPro tests for 5 univariants. Some of these univariant numbers reported on were only in the 70s and 80s. Uninformed shareholders, including me, were disappointed by these numbers. We were expecting numbers in the 90s. What I didn't understand before was that we can report on each univariant biomarkers independently. When we do we get a lesser number than when we combine all five together (multivariant). It is when we combine all of them together that we get the good high results in the 90s. We all need to get more informed about this stuff. It can be confusing. AMBS might release numbers that horrifies shareholders, but thrills scientists! That means we're not up to speed. I am not a scientist, and I welcome more qualified science people to explain this better than I'm attempting to. But my understanding is that if you only take a reading on just one of our univariant biomarkers, the numbers are going to be much lower than what we've been accustomed to talking about on the mb. It's when you compile all of them together that we get the nice multivariant numbers that put us above our competition. Not only will LymPro be more accurate than Amivid, but LymPro is less invasive than amivid. A big MRI-like machine is needed to detect a solution that they shoot into our veins and goes into our head. And it costs around $3,500 for the test. LymPro will cost between $1,000 and $1,500, initially. LymPro is less expensive, less invasive, and more accurate. Big Pharma doing AD clinical trials will be waiting for LymPro big time!!
Why? Because we've gotten ahead of ourselves in anticipation of the LymPro data in July. Then, when we didn't get what we expected, we dropped. By keeping us down here at .12 cents we are sufficiently low that we can go up appropriately as each LymPro catalyst is announced in the next couple of weeks. Sure, I'd rather be trading above .20 cents right now, but I think it will be nice to let the market react to each catalyst as it's announced instead of Money Runners running it up ahead of time. This next 30 days should be monumental for all of us.
Your expecting us to believe you're a long and you're asking for advice from Zarc and infinite and the Professor? Ha ha. You'll lost it, man! Just come out, like zarc has.
jegfsu: You're trying too hard to be one of us longs. It shows through. You would be more effective if you were more honest about you position like Cloveless is. He flips and makes money trading AMBS, but he never bad mouths it on the mb. I believe he is related to Gerald by marriage. But he is open about his trading. Your post over your "worries" about the wording on this PR is a lame "soft bash." We all see it! It's getting old, like an 8 year old's incessant telling of knock, knock jokes once he's learned a couple. Then he starts making them up ad nauseam. That's where you are now, jegfsu. Stop it. The word "preparing" is appropriate because they are gradually and methodically demonstrating it's scientific dependability. This bridge test that they'll be announcing the results of will be on less than 100 people. That is a fairly small sample, but sufficient for where LymPro is right now the FDA approval process. Next, they will announce the partner and they will do a 3 month validation study (160 patients) in their lab right prior to commercialization. They just have to keep the paperwork of that study in their lab so that when CLIA inspectors come by from time to time they can review it. But even this larger validation test and the first several months of commercialization is also a "preparation" for getting full FDA approval. LymPro's test results are going to keep getting honed and getting more accurate. We may only be in the low 90s now, but our numbers may be much higher than that a year from now. Big Pharma doing AD clinical trials will have a hard time turning down using LymPro when it is cheaper, less invasive, and more accurate. You should have already known this, jegfsu. Do some dd instead of "soft bashing!"
Oh, you're smart enough Professor, no doubt about that. It's your motives, being a snake in the grass, that prevents you from being trusted. That and going through my facebook posts to reference family tragedies as a way of getting into my head. That "dark" tendency in your character belies the congenial, intellectual tone you try to cultivate in your posts. Who references things like that on a stock mb? All's fair in love an war? That's what taints all of your posts. You can't hide your character, no one can.