Seeking Alpha

MichaelJ8's  Instablog

MichaelJ8
Send Message
I am currently a marketing specialist for a biotech company. In the past I have been a chemist for biotech and pharmaceutical companies, working mainly in manufacturing science and production. My education consists of a B.S. in Chemistry and am progressing towards an M.B.A, expected graduation... More
  • Provectus Should Have FDA Approval For Phase III, Why Adam Feurestein Is Wrong. 32 comments
    Jan 23, 2014 9:37 PM | about stocks: PVCT

    There has been a lot of hype around Provectus (OTC:PVCT). The recent price action has been nothing short of spectacular in the past few days and weeks. In my opinion there is heavy manipulation occurring. Regardless, the stock should do well in 2014. An FDA approval should be coming to push the PV-10 trials for melanoma into phase III. If not, then a crime will be committed by the FDA.

    Some pundits have graciously explained why Provectus PV-10 will fail. One of those pundits is Adam Feurestein (NYSE:AF). I am going to critique his recent article published on 1/23/14, an article with perfect timing for the bear raid (although the recent bull push was ridiculous, I think 2.00-2.50$ share is a good place to enter into PVCT. My critique will explain why every single one of his points in his article, except a few, are just plain wrong or simply opinion with no factual grounding.

    In regards to why the company officials suddenly being quite: no one knows. Anything said is simply opinion. End of story.

    Adam claims that PV-10 is simply diluted Rose Bengal, a stain used by eye doctors. It can be bought by the gallon easily and cheaply... this is true. But he implies that Provectus purification of Rose Bengal does not make it different.

    First, I have a degree in chemistry. AF has a degree in political science. Let's just get that out of the way. I actually work in purification of specialty chemicals, and used to work as a chemist (contractor) at one of the best pharma companies in the world working on the manufacturing process of small molecule drugs.

    I can tell you that purification can make a world of difference in the application and functionality of a compound. I am not familiar with the PV-10 manufacturing procedure, so I am speaking in general (but so is AF). Impurities can hinder the products full potential, whether it's a pharmaceutical or a polymer used in solar panel cells. In pharmaceuticals, impurities can interfere with surrounding tissues and molecules like enzymes, hindering the body's ability to absorb or utilize the compound. Secondly, impurities can be dangerous and the risk for potential side effects is greater. These are facts. Don't let AF's implied statement stray you from facts. It is cheap, and the only risk I see is the black market taking some sales away. Sometimes purification can be very expensive. I deal with this on a daily basis. I literally make 100% pure material sometimes (as measured by gas chromatography technique, nothing is ever truly 100% pure).

    He also writes that few, if any people cared about PV-10 in the medical community. Again AF, this is not a fact, your opinion. End of story. He also writes Provectus has never got a partner, implying that no one respects PV-10. AF again implies, but shows no proof, except that management made promises. Well, there is still a lot time for a partner.

    Another point he makes is that it has taken management a lot of time to get (not there yet) to Phase III trials. He's right, this is true. I will give him that. What this implies could be many things, but this is a legit concern. One of only a few he makes. He is right everyone should question this, but at this point it is still speculation as to why. I am interested in facts.

    He also talks about the competition in the melanoma landscape. I agree things are looking to improve in this market from a patients perspective. Many competitors are out there. But he mentions Bristol Myers Squibb Yervoy, a compound with a 10.9% response rate(www.hcp.yervoy.com/Pages/efficacy/respon...). This is poor. In addition, the side effects of Yervoy are much more severe, with people actually dying from it. You can read more about the side effects in the Yervoy packaging insert. Just search for it, the side effects can be very bad including recorded deaths.

    Guess what? Provectus PV-10 has a 51% response rate, and a very mild side effect profile to date. Were there deaths in PV-10 from hepatic failure like in Yervoy? No. PV-10(Rose Bengal) for melanoma has shown, so far, to be very well tolerated.

    AF also mentions that because of the advances in melanoma, the FDA won't let PV-10 go to phase III. Adam, are you serious? You're trying to imply the FDA won't let this go to phase III because other companies are developing their own drugs? Are you serious? Please. This is another opinion from AF, and in fact, one of the most illogical opinions I have ever heard of.

    But not as illogical as his comparison to Vicals Allovectin-7. He claims that because they are similar the FDA will not approve PV-10. No, Adam, you are wrong again. Such poor logic. Vicals Allovectin did not get approved because the phase III trials showed it had an 11% response rate and a Hazard ratio of 1. This means it's not effective at all. That's why Vicals Allovectin didn't get approved. Provectus PV-10 has shown a 51% response rate in Phase II with mild side effects. There is no reason why it should not get moved up to phase III.

    AF claims Merck will get its Lambrolizumab approved after only phase I results. I am assuming he means to phase II, because it's not clear, but so what? How does this affect Pv-10? I love how he uses imagery like "standing room crowds" when writing about Lambrolizumab. So what? Again, how does this affect a phase III trial for PV-10? It doesn't.

    PV-10 should be moved up to phase III. The FDA has no good reason not to. AF did make the case that there could be a lack of patients out there considering how many phase I, II, III trials are out there. This I do agree with, but it's a moot point. It would be crime to not let PV-10 move to the phase III trials. PV-10 has earned it.

    Adam Feurestein, I'm calling you out. Explain yourself and your motives.

    I am Long Provectus.

    Disclosure: I am long PVCT.

    Themes: PVCT, Melanoma Stocks: PVCT
Back To MichaelJ8's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (32)
Track new comments
  • nicksanta
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    Well done sir. Thank you for dissecting his article point by point.
    23 Jan 2014, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelJ8
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » thanks. I can not wait for the price action tomorrow.
    23 Jan 2014, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • Tile
    , contributor
    Comments (93) | Send Message
     
    Let's hope for the better, but it is down again now @ 1.8 after hour.
    23 Jan 2014, 11:09 PM Reply Like
  • jkrywyn
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    Thank you. He deals in insinuations and innuendo, leading to an incomplete picture or worldview by those who know little about the company or the drug.

     

    Thanks for the response. He still never addressed the data or efficacy as I have been asking him on Twitter for more than a week. Moreso recently. He basically said that this "sucks" and the drugs are "crappy". Very professional and very profound.

     

    We would really like for management to respond. Or for a doctor or somebody who has worked with PV10 to write a similar response. Hopefully when the dust settles all th extra attention is a good thing.
    23 Jan 2014, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • nicksanta
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    I emailed $PVCT Investor Relations and received a response within 30 minutes. A response from management is forthcoming:)
    23 Jan 2014, 11:55 PM Reply Like
  • jkrywyn
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    I was told the same on the phone this afternoon. But they have to get it through lawyers. Hope it comes tomorrow.
    23 Jan 2014, 11:58 PM Reply Like
  • nicksanta
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    Ugh...lawyers. That would most likely delay it to next week. At least something will come out. In the meantime, if the drop continues, more for us to buy:)
    24 Jan 2014, 12:06 AM Reply Like
  • jkrywyn
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    Funny how when I looked up the drug adam mentioned, in related news is a provectus article raving about it.

     

    http://bit.ly/1isuzcS
    23 Jan 2014, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • shadi547
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Simply he wanted to be bribed, when the company neglectef he did that to show them he can bad things. This is the best you can do, pvct is a 10$ /share in early Feb.
    24 Jan 2014, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • MacCBOE
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    jkrywyn - I have experienced the very same type of responses from AF via Twitter as you have. Completely unprofessional, as if he were addressing a locker room or a bar room. Myself and several others begged AF along with several of his minions on Twitter to "please show us where we are wrong, don't just give us innuendo and silly, off-handed aphorisms for answers, but please answer our to-the-point questions, e.g 'What exactly is wrong with the data? Why do you only make accusations and provide us with no proof?'" We have been doing our own due diligence, and as my friend posted, "we are TRYING to find data to disprove things for my own peace of mind - and ONLY find a working medication..." And what does AF and his cabal of discreditors return with? That's right - "You'll be sorry - this will end poorly, etc etc" - ad nauseum. No proof, nothing tearing apart the data to show us where we are wrong. Show me where I am wrong, Mr. Feuerstein, point to the test results that will convince myself and others where we are wrong, so we can believe along with you!

     

    Well, it has NOW become quite obvious why they (AF and his buddies) were so cute and coy about the whole thing and why they started with their little mini-warnings - AF had planned all along, and he must have tipped off his players - that an article disparaging the entire PVCT corporation, its officers and their product was imminent. Was this really published for "OUR BENEFIT" folks? Really - do you actually believe that ? No, I think something more nefarious was going on, and rereading the Twitter feeds from about a week or so ago and into the publishing date of thestreet.com article ought to easily convince anyone of that.

     

    Of course they will tear the above well-written and thought-out piece to shreds, in their same way they've ripped into everyone else's defense of the data and facts. Neither I nor my friends that are investors (Notice I am using the word INVESTORS, not DAY-TRADERS) care a wit if we are proven wrong - but point out the facts and the data where we are wrong, as the article above me does (Good work, MichaelJ8 BTW), don't just take potshots at the company and then run off without presenting anything FACTUAL.

     

    Keep up the good work here - the author deserves kudos. For me, if the company is a sham - if the officers have some how ripped off the public, or have faked the results of tests and someone out there knows about it, then the right place to go is the FBI, the US Attorney, or the Securities and Exchange Commission. Oblique, allusive remarks and innuendos posted to Twitter and not backed up by facts? Just spells manipulation to me.

     

    If you have so much, then go to the authorities I just named above. Simple as that. If you believe the executives are over-paid, go ring up Carl C. Ichan or show up at a company meeting or say your piece in a letter. Let's just stop the a constant torrent of innuendo, gossip, lies, and half-truths.

     

    Thank you.
    24 Jan 2014, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • MacCBOE
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    I would be remiss if I did not add one more thing to my comments above - laughable, but very true: AF Tweeted on Wednesday in a response to questioning as to what exactly is it about the data/company/product that makes u think they will fail so badly?

     

    "$PVCT and their website stinks"

     

    Yes, Adam, the SCIENTISTS at Provectus who trying to get an oncology drug with a 51% response rate to market are worried about building a fancy, slick website to please you. Sorry to hear that, sir.
    24 Jan 2014, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  • MichaelJ8
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I agree i have grammatical errors. I wrote this pretty quickly, and wanted to get it out there, plus its a blog. If this were a real article I would be more careful. But grammar and content are not the same thing. My content is solid.
    24 Jan 2014, 01:20 AM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1222) | Send Message
     
    I don't doubt your chemistry content. But I'm not sure you understand what the issue is here, why investors are awaiting for the minutes from the meeting with the FDA.

     

    PVCT is hoping for some sort of shortened path to FDA approval, meaning breakthrough designation or accelerated approval, where they might get conditional approval while they run a phase 3 study. This is always good news because it means you can start selling your drug now.

     

    What Feuerstein is implying is that, well, that's not going to happen. He believes the FDA will mandate that PVCT has to run a phase 3 trial and then submit an NDA. And this whole process can take 3 to 4 years. Because, per his argument, there is nothing amazingly special about this drug and the conditions of the current treatment environment don't warrant an accelerated approval.

     

    I'm not saying he's right, but if I were to guess....I'd lean towards his argument. It's actually very difficult to get an accelerated approval.

     

    There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, a billion or more dollars for treating this disease, and PVCT wants it now. It's likely that the FDA is going to say wait, they need to see more data. This is why the stock price is fluctuating madly.
    24 Jan 2014, 01:32 AM Reply Like
  • MichaelJ8
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I appreciate your insight. I think your criticism is dead on with regards to my blog. I am not patronizing you, I truly appreciate the comments.

     

    My article was only a critique of Adam's article almost point by point, its not necessarily in regards to PVCT trying to get accelerated approval, although Adam does infer to that point, you are right about that, and maybe that is one of his main points in his article, but its hard to see that with everything else that is incorrect in his article.

     

    It is hard to get an SPA, I agree, but I don't think its unreasonable for Provectus considering Rose Bengal is already in use in humans and has been for many years. But only time will time.

     

    To be clear, I did edit the mistakes you mentioned. Spelling Bristol Myers Squibb wrong is a pretty bad mistake. Silly me.
    24 Jan 2014, 01:48 AM Reply Like
  • jkrywyn
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    No. In fact, Adam suggested in his first article that there was no way they could even get a phase 3 trial. That the drugs were "crappy" and that management was a sham. He also implied or said straight out that the company was worthless.

     

    And, he changed his story and decided to twist things to fit his own made-up mind. Suddenly a BtTD application was a "Hail Mary". This is ludicrous. If management really was a sham and wanted to string us along as investors they certainly would not apply for a hard resignation in the form of breakthrough designation.

     

    A type c meeting is a guidance meeting. They had it. Now they applied for btd. If in fact the drug was "obsolete" the FDA would stop the entire process immediately. They do not play games with peoples lives or health.

     

    They are trying to protect lives with their regulation.

     

    So while I agree that the "market" was disappointed, perhaps it was disappointed because people were confused about the process. There was no way they could not be disappointed if people were expecting something that was not possible. You do not get approval after a guidance meeting. You find out what you should apply for.
    26 Jan 2014, 02:32 AM Reply Like
  • valuefinder
    , contributor
    Comments (111) | Send Message
     
    Have they already applied for BTD? Also, what do you mean by "approval for Phase 3". Can't they just go ahead and initiate it? Or they are waiting on the SPA?
    26 Jan 2014, 02:36 AM Reply Like
  • nicksanta
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    They will apply for BTD by the end of Q1 but may not announce it. Then it's 60 days before the FDA responds. So latest we should know is early June.
    26 Jan 2014, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1222) | Send Message
     
    The issue isn't whether BTD or AA is 'easier/harder' than running a regular P3 study from a 'study management/conduct' perspective; it's a matter of time. Running a full phase 3 study, including enrollment, conduct, close out, analysis of TLFs, and then preparing the NDA, submitting it, and waiting 10 months for PDUFA - all of which could take up to 4 years before you can market your drug, is a lot longer than a BTD or AA, which could reduce that timeline a lot, including the possibility of it being zero.
    26 Jan 2014, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • bigguy20004581
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Institutions like Moffitt cancer center in Tampa and MD Anderson in Houston have proven beyond a doubt that PV10 can cause cancer cells to self destruct while sparing healthy tissue. Also proven is PV10 can institute an immune response that will travel to cancer that has not been injected. Anyone doubting the efficacy and safety of PV10? Google is your friend.
    24 Jan 2014, 02:02 AM Reply Like
  • thefamilyman
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    Here are some before and after photos of a patient treated with PV-10. It's sad to have such a terrible disease; even sadder to think that PV-10 could possibly not be available/approved if we or our loved ones needed it.

     

    http://bit.ly/1llP5xO
    29 Jan 2014, 07:32 AM Reply Like
  • MichaelJ8
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » thanks, but is this type of information allowed? is it true?
    29 Jan 2014, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • nicksanta
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    Allowed? Are you referring to the link above? If so, it's directly from slide 15 of the Provectus presentation on their website.

     

    http://bit.ly/1ehiNi6
    29 Jan 2014, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • MichaelJ8
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » the link was direct to some blog site i never heard of. Hence why I was asking....
    Until just now I never took AF's comment on PVTC website seriously. It is hard to navigate. Much of the pictures and presentations are under the /publications link. I never heard of the /presentation link
    29 Jan 2014, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • nicksanta
    , contributor
    Comments (311) | Send Message
     
    Odd, his link takes me to a page with just the 6 pictures of the 86 yr old man from the presentation. I recognized it so I provided the website link.

     

    True, the site is not user friendly. The presentation is under the Press Center section. Then Press Kit option. Again, odd.
    29 Jan 2014, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • buccaneer 1961
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    and you can see the up date on connecting the dots jan 24th,great info
    24 Jan 2014, 02:04 AM Reply Like
  • kdII
    , contributor
    Comments (338) | Send Message
     
    P Man, he might not know how to spell, but I'm sure he knows how to read.

     

    You said AF did not state FDA was preventing PVCT from conducting a phase 3 study. Well, he did write in the article: "Given the huge advances in melanoma care today, FDA might be telling Provectus that it cannot proceed with the phase III study, as planned." Close enough, I think.

     

    AF's above-mentioned statement is the most controversial of the article, in my opinion. Why? Because pvct, through an optimistic Dec. 18 pr following the Type C meeting, and its subsequent positive 8-k filed one month later notifying shareholders of the delay of the minutes, was signaling something totally different: that the meeting was a success; that the approval pathway was becoming clearer. Remember: the 8-k was filed one month after the fda Type C meeting, which certainly meant, in the very least, that Pvct was cognizant of the the contents of the delayed fda minutes. Would management have filed such an optimistic 8-k on Jan. 15 had they been told during the Type C meeting that they could not proceed with the phase III study?

     

    It actually makes you wonder how much thought AF put into the article. Think about it. A company is told during a meeting with fda that they cannot go through with their Phase III study, essentially saying their drug is bad and they are going broke. Instead of closing down the doors, so to speak, the company comes out with a post-meeting (VERY EXPLICIT) pr stating that the fda meeting is a significant step toward drug approval; that they either got aa or btd; and that on-going int'l licensing talks would not be affected. We are not talking about upcoming study results, which are open to interpretation until data is released. We are talking about facts, words on record about an event that occurred. You cannot spin fda minutes.

     

    You might reply: of course they have a reason: they want to raise money before the minutes are released. For what? If the company is going broke due to an obsolete drug, they don't need to raise money. For their own pockets? There are no insider selling transactions on record. Ever. And, of course, if there were, I don't think jail is a good place to take your money.

     

    Btw, Michael: it always amuses me that people point out spelling or grammatical errors. Think about a mind that works in that way: like judging a man by the clothes he wears rather than the character he has. Sad commentary on the mind in general and reasoning in particular. Keep thinking!
    24 Jan 2014, 03:17 AM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1222) | Send Message
     
    Well, a few things....

     

    1) An SPA is much, much different than a break-through designation or accelerated approval. I won't go into excruciating detail of what an SPA is - although I think it's important as a biotech investor to do this on your own - but a special protocol assessment basically means you have agreed with the FDA (prior to running your phase 3 study) in great detail and specifics as to what your trial design will be, what your endpoints will be, and what your results need to be, in order to eventually get approval. And then, in theory, if you do everything as agreed upon, you will get FDA approval (although AMRN investors know this isn't always true).

     

    So, there is no magic in getting an SPA. There is, however, magic in getting the SPA that you want. The FDA can set the bar extremely high if you are not prepared during that meeting, and thus the biotech can be tied into a protocol that has almost no chance of succeeding.

     

    2) To follow on this, you also don't need an SPA to do a phase 3 study; in fact, most sponsors don't get SPAs. They just meet with the FDA at what is known as an 'end of phase 2 meeting' where they in general agree to the design and endpoints of the phase 3 trial, but the FDA is not tied into an automatic approval if the data supports it. The problem of course is that, well, things are complicated, so it can be difficult to a priori agree to findings in your soon to be run study that will guarantee an approval because if you miss just one of say ten issues, you won't get approval. An approval you might get had you not had the SPA in place.

     

    3) In regard to KDII's comment, the key clause in that sentence is "as planned". Meaning that perhaps what the FDA was willing to consider as an acceptable endpoint 2 years ago is today no longer an acceptable endpoint. Now, I have no idea if that is true or not, but it is at least plausible that the endpoints for getting a drug approved for this indication have changed in the past 2 years. Which could mean that the FDA would not be willing to agree to the 'old' study design, whether it be an SPA or even a regularly run phase 3 trial.

     

    Thus, he is not saying that PVCT cannot run a phase 3 trial - the FDA is fine with anyone running a phase 3 trial as long as the drug is safe - he's saying that they possibly have not been able to come to an agreement with the FDA regarding design and endpoints.

     

    4) Finally, I have accepted Michael's explanation for the spelling errors (not that you care). However, I tend to think that if I am to be getting investment advice, health advice, financial advice, or really an advice from a consultant/expert/sale... I'd like to have a level of confidence that this person knows what they are talking about. If I went in to see a new doctor and he kept misspelling or misusing medical terms....I would walk out. If I went to see a new accountant and he kept misusing accounting firms....I would walk out. If I went to buy a car and the salesman was trying to land me on a 'Toyoter', I would walk out.

     

    Maybe your standards aren't as high, but to me, properly being able to convey your message says a lot about one's credibility and whether or not I will be convinced to follow one's advice.
    24 Jan 2014, 04:08 AM Reply Like
  • cold beef cake
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    @KdII: Excellent reply. That was the most disturbing insinuation of Adam's:

     

    "Given the huge advances in melanoma care today, FDA might be telling Provectus that it cannot proceed with the phase III study, as planned."

     

    'might' ? He could be right or wrong. But, 'might' is a guess.

     

    I can understand casting doubt on a substance that has been sitting in front of our faces all this time with his "buy it by the gallon" remark. What that essentially does, in AF's eyes, is conceptually spitting in the face of all of the 800lb gorillas and their billions that have been spent on R&D along with hundreds of studies and trials. Surely, there is no way that a simple iodine-based chemical can be more effective. Though, the point is that, this chemical has such a safe profile with seemingly strong outcomes that it could certainly be used in conjunction with other treatments. Kind of like the ibuprofen of oncology; take the specialized treatment but also include the routine pain killer, per se.

     

    AF's blog was written with high disdain for this chemical compound as if Provectus is purposely trying to mock the rest of the oncology world. However, that is clearly untrue. If PV-10 has a high overall response rate then why wouldn't the FDA support it as a routine treatment and part of a multi-pronged therapy solution?
    24 Jan 2014, 06:56 AM Reply Like
  • cking6178
    , contributor
    Comments (43) | Send Message
     
    excellent article, and while my degree is in Finance I completely understand and agree with your point about purification....I spent six years of my career working in a gas pipeline control room where the company I worked for provided process gases for the O&G industry...product purity had huge implications in process reaction times and equipment efficiencies....again, I'm a finance guy so I don't necessarily understand the science behind it, but the concept seems fairly straight forward...thanks for the article!
    24 Jan 2014, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • valuefinder
    , contributor
    Comments (111) | Send Message
     
    P Man, thanks a lot for weighing in with balanced comments. Hope that some investors return to objectivity with the PR release now out.
    24 Jan 2014, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • jkrywyn
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    What do you mean evident the FDA doesn't agree with? What facts do you have to support this?

     

    Well many things have been twisted and misconstrued, the December 16 meeting was a type C meeting. Google it. A type C meeting is for the FDA to meet with the company and provide guidance towards the next step.

     

    This is what they did. And if they objects to btd application, the company would have simply gone for the easier ph3 approval.

     

    To suggest it is a "Hail Mary" is ludicrous. That is not how things work. Try researching how the FDA process works.

     

    Investors who are adequately educated as to the procedure and the nature of the Dragon data got exactly what we wanted. An application for BTD.
    26 Jan 2014, 02:28 AM Reply Like
  • jkrywyn
    , contributor
    Comments (175) | Send Message
     
    Frankly, everything is opinion until the FDA rules. Period.

     

    therefore, anything Adam said is clearly speculation and opinion and means nothing in the way of fact.

     

    Furthermore, Adam has clearly been anti-PV and has been for at least a year. Look up his old tweets and he will tweet something disparaging every time a new press releases issued.

     

    Why would he do that? Why follow the company? There's obviously a grudge and he is obviously against the very notion that this drug is possible. Rather than being a journalist, he sought out everything to prove his opinion rather than seeking out the facts and making an opinion based on them.

     

    This creates a lack of journalistic credibility. Instead he is a commentator and a very bad one at that.

     

    he has even been quoted as saying he enjoys a bear in the biotech market because of its "icky" nature. Frankly, the company had to try and respond. All he did was take the information that suited his needs and used it to his advantage. He did not weigh both sides and both possibilities. That is what a journalist would do.

     

    I suggest if you really care about this or you really are worried about investing, that you take it to an oncologist and have them look at it.

     

    Everyone who I have shown this data who was in the medical field or an oncologist disagrees with Adam. While they cannot say whether or not this drug will be approved, they certainly believe it is very possible for this drug to help people and to be approved. Obviously all he has an opinion, but I will take a doctors opinion and an oncologists opinion over a guy who tweets about drinking more than he does about anything educational.

     

    Sorry for any spelling mistakes. Blame Siri.
    26 Jan 2014, 02:37 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • $GALE annndddd .........whatever. I'm a long term investor, no surprises for me. I have faith in GALE and won't be chased by the fear monger
    Jun 15, 2015
  • $CUR and the random pump is over... there is nothing suspicious happening, no no... move along now... move along.
    Jun 11, 2015
  • $CUR and this is happening why?
    Jun 9, 2015
More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.