I hope he answers. No one likes to hear this but he's been right about EXEl for a long time and has made more money short this stock than any of us longs could hope to be. So with 60 million shares short, and him the most vocal short here, with his track record, I take heed. So I'd like to know why. I hope its not his ego talking with all the hits he takes from so many here, that he just 'wants' it to fail so he can rub everyone's nose in it again. And I don't want to hear financials, MMM, etc.. I'm talking METEOR and METEOR only. He said it will fail, and because he's the guy with all the money (our money) in his pocket, I simply want to know why he thinks so.
i know you have been a vocal critic of EXEL. I'd be curious to get your comment. Your most recent comments really paint a bleak picture of EXEL. I get that. But I have asked this of you before with yet no comment. If in fact Cometriq has already shown 3 times now, signifcant stat sig improvement of PFS (Comet-1), EXAM, and the prior phases of METEOR itself, why re you so sure METEOR will crash when PFS is the Primary end point. I don't get it. Of you are a trader and really don't care if you make money on the way up or down, how do you bet against this? I'd like to know, because, as I said, you have been the right more than wrong here. I value your opinion. So inquiring minds want to know...why would you be short EXEL in Q2? because regardles of finacials, past failures, MMm, and everything else. if Meteor is a success the PPS is jumping and probably substatially. So why will METEOR fail? What am i missing?
sorry. intent was to shed more light on this topic not criticize you. I'm all over this technology and the companies spearheading them. Just overly excited.
The following from a recent (at 5PM EST today) article on PFS and Cometriq. Its the question I have been asking you guys. It just seems to me that there has already been some significant empirical data (no guessing or hoping but empirical data), that Cometriq can easily meet the Primary End Point of PFS in the METEOR study.
"COMET-1 and CELESTIAL target/targeted a statistically significant improvement in median overall survival as their primary endpoint. In METEOR, though, a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), or in other words stable disease, is the primary endpoint.
This is particularly intriguing because even in the COMET-1 study Cometriq delivered superior PFS of 5.5 months versus the control group at 2.8 months. In the metastatic medullary thyroid cancer trial that led to its approval it nearly tripled the PFS of the control drug (11.2 months versus four months). To put it another way, Cometriq has fared well in PFS comparisons, making the second-quarter release of the METEOR results, which are focused primarily on PFS, a very important study."
You guys have missed a lot of the science here. I think Urab or Social said it takes years to see the results? Actually in some cases it took days..yes days to eliminate a brain tumor. Amazing stuff. Forget 60 minutes. Go see the documentary from VICE on HBO which recently aired. It goes into much greater detail. The virus they use is altered genetically so it cannot reproduce or otherwise rendered harmless. It then somehow makes the tumor 'recognizable' to the T-cells (own immune system) where it wasn't before, then the immume system just annihilates the tumor. I'm simplifying of course. They have used the common cold virus, the measles virus, and even HIV. There are some great companies in this area such as JUNO, KITE, BLUE, all in the area of CAR-T therapy which is related. In effect these companies, through gene altering are all making cancer cells recognizable to the immune system. Blue is on the verge of curing Sickle Cell Anemia. I'm in all 3, and the world is beating a path to their door way. Watch the documentary!!! You will be amazed!
Despite what my good friend semansaru attributes this decline today (company suxx), the fact is in the recent days there has been a whole bunch of noise and articles about a biotech bubble, overheated, etc.etc. I follow some 20 or more biotechs and they are ALL down today, with exception of two. Most under 2%. So maybe EXEL does suck, but that's not why its down today. It was a funny comment nonetheless. He's consistent if nothing else.
Isn't this yet another example (Comet-1) being one and Medullary the other, of Cabo significantly increasing PFS? Doesn't that bode well for Meteor? What am I missing?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sounds like a trap'. Trap who or what? And for what purpose? I'm simply trying to determine/understand the likelihood or unlikelihood of a Meteor success. Biotech, the science, and the testing, etc. can be confusing for an average investor. Answers to these questions would help ME. I'm not if they's help anyone else, and I'm sure there are more questions to ask, and maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. You answered question 8, thank you.. At a minimum, I'd love to get answers to 3, 5 thru 7. I'm kinda surprised no one else chimed in.
Homeslice, Great opinion, (I like the lack of personal attacks) and you may be right in the end, as it is you by far who has the best track record here. Anyone deny that and they are kidding themselves. But no doubt all your antagonists here have a much longer horizon than you. But in this opinion expressed here, it would be a long view, pretty pessimistic but long nonetheless But for sure, those with the long optimistic views are patient (perhaps to a fault) and are looking for future events to validate their opinions and make them money of course (that's what 'being long' is after all).. So a question for you, I know you have already expressed your opinion that Meteor will fail.
But how do things change if its successful, including PPS, and Roche, et. al. What's your opinion if that unlikely outcome? Be honest.
I and I'm sure others are confused when it comes to understanding the likelihood or unlikelihood of a successful Meteor Trial. Answers to the following questions, would help my understanding. To the extent possible, I phrase them to be answered with one word answers. Trying to net it out, keep it simple. Asking those who respond to keep it short an simple as well. Thanks Homeys!
1. Cabo failed in Comet trial because the the Primary Endpoint, OS, was poor relative to placebo. True or False?
2. The patient population was a very sick population, having taken other cancer therapies/drugs previously that were of little help. True or False?
3. However, PFS in the Comet trial was good. True or False? Can you quantify good?
4. The Meteor trial Endpoint for Cabo is PFS. True or False?
5. The results in phase 1 and 2 of Meteor were positive. How good (can you quantify?)
6. Cabo's chances in the phase 3 Meteor trial for a very positive result are very good because:
a. RCC will respond better than CrPC (it's 'easier'). True or false?
b. PFS is a lower bar to hurdle than OS. True or False?
7. There are other RCC drugs on the market today that already address PFS. For Cabo to truly be considered a success, it would have to show a PFS of at least ______________ months (fill in the blank).
8. The longer the time to report the findings of Meteor the better it is, as it would indicate longer PFS and/or a successful trial. True or False?
BTW, i saw the same thing, so you are not dreaming. And wasn't is just a week or so back where we saw another long goodbye from Wilder, explaining how he was going to do sheep herding or something? Just to re-appear with no explanation a few days later? Maybe Wilder gets hammered and PUI (Posts Under the Influence). In any event I hope he stays.
Frankly, emansaru and wilder just antagonize each other to death, and i gets tiresome. Full disclosure, you can likely find me guilty of the same in the past. But these two take it to new levels. They both have something to contribute and if they can, and the rest here, would simply leave out the rhetoric and the personal attacks, if they could state opinions without being attacked for it, the entire board would be better off. Otherwise, put them on ignore if you really don't want to hear from them. I especially like Wilder's post as they come form a LONG view steeped in the science. Emanasaru on the other hand is a trader with a short term (and SHORT) bias. These two may as well debate religion with each other.. Makes no sense, why subject us to it? You can learn from both, I don't want to put them on ignore.
Not going short but have have a sht load of stop limits trying to limit further downside, not far from where it is now. I'm underwater but, unlike you and perhaps a few others, I believe there is a reasonable chance, better than reasonable chance, that METEOR will be successful. Primarily because the primary endpoint is PFS. Its hard to argue against that considering the PFS success shown in Phase 1 and 2, combined with the PFS shown in COMET. You see that right? And for that reason after being long for sometime, then go short only to see a successful test, I'll want to stick a sharp stick in my eye to relieve the pain, or maybe spend an evening with Wilder talking off label uses of Cabo, or maybe worse, reviewing technical charts with you! God please help me.
On 3/2 Thomson Reuters/Verus downgraded EXEL from HOLD to SELL.. 15 days later they upgrade EXEL from SELL to HOLD.
On 2/27 McLean Capital Management dropped coverage for EXEL. Just seven (7) days later, they re-initiate coverage with neutral recommendation.
Some explain that to me.....
I agree. You stated your opinion absent any personal attacks, so this reply is simply uncalled for. No one has to like your opinion. nothing wrong with disagreement, but gees...