Seeking Alpha

Mohamed Farhat's  Instablog

Mohamed Farhat
Send Message
Medical oncologist and hematologist
  • GALE: The Oncologist's Perspective On A Life Saving Therapy 115 comments
    Feb 14, 2014 3:21 PM | about stocks: GALE

    The Oncologist's Perspective On A Life Saving Therapy

    This first of two articles is intended to give the public an oncologist's perspective on interpreting data from clinical trials and understanding the mechanism of action of medication. I will provide an inside look at what we in the oncology community take into consideration when treating our patients. It is important to be able to accurately and scientifically assess the impact of clinical trial data and to be aware of possible misrepresentations or pitfalls in the popular media.

    I am a board-certified medical oncologist and hematologist in one of the largest oncology groups in the Midwest. As part of my practice, I also serve as the hospital's chairman of cancer services and the director of the cancer center. Our practice has over 100 clinical trials in all areas of cancer medicine, and I serve as the principal investigator on several of those clinical trials.

    I am not a financial analyst nor am I an accountant and will not pretend to be, so this discussion will be solely focused on the medical aspect of Galena Biopharma. I would like to address two areas that have been the subject of recent blog posts on financial and biotech websites.

    1. NeuVax (nelipepimut-S) and why it is key to improving survival in our patients.

    For many years chemotherapy and hormonal therapy were the main treatments for our breast cancer patients, depending on their hormonal status. In recent years, treatment options have evolved dramatically. Scientists have been able to not only identify molecular markers involved in cancer growth, but more importantly have developed the ability to target those receptors and improve our patients' survival.

    The next step in the evolution in cancer therapy was to not only target those molecular markers, but also stimulate patients' own immune systems to help fight the battle against cancer.

    In 2011, the Nobel Prize for medicine was awarded to Bruce A. Butler, Jules A. Hoffmann and Ralph M. Steinman for their discoveries of the role of dendritic cells in adaptive immunity and the activation of innate immunity. These groundbreaking discoveries paved the way for the development of a multitude of vaccines to stimulate immunity and increase survival in our cancer patients. A first example is the advent of Provenge (sipuleucel-T, Dendreon). This is a therapeutic cancer vaccine for prostate cancer, meaning that it stimulates an immune response against cancer cells carrying a specific antigen. Studies have shown that the use of this vaccine has increased the 3 year survival over control groups by 37.8%. In lay terms, this means that 37.8% more patients are alive at 3 years if they received the vaccine than if they didn't. Please see the graph below, taken from the Provenge website.

    Further evidence of the efficacy of vaccines in cancer treatment is Yervoy, (ipilimumab, Bristol-Myers Squibb) which is a vaccine therapy approved by the FDA for use in metastatic melanoma. As indicated by the graph below, taken from the Yervoy website, this has almost doubled the overall survival of treated patients.

    To me as a medical oncologist, these results are truly remarkable-- particularly when we are using therapy that doesn't have nearly the same cytotoxic effect as chemotherapy.

    At this time, I would like to reference Matt Gravitt's article that was published on Jan 31st where he mentioned "Why the NeuVax PRESENT Phase III trial is poised for failure. Simply put, science and logic will prevail". Science has already clearly demonstrated the benefit of immunotherapy (vaccine therapy) for cancer treatment. Given the efficacy that we in the medical community have already experienced with the above mentioned treatments, it is certain that NeuVax has science on its side. It is unclear to me why, in the face of this overwhelming evidence, Mr. Gravitt believes that science will not support the potential of NeuVax in preventing or delaying recurrence of breast cancer in patients who have achieved remission with stand of care treatment. Perhaps his definition of "science" is different from that of three Nobel Prize winners, the FDA, and in fact the medical research community at large.

    Let's dig further.

    We can review the ASCO 2010 presentation of the phase 1/2 trial. Breast cancer patients who were node positive with a diversity of Her-2 (1, 2 and 3+) positivity were randomized to standard of care vs. standard of care in combination with NeuVax. The graph below is from Galena's website which delineates the progression free survival of the 97 patients that were evaluated.

    Although it was not statically significant with a p-value of 0.1194 (statistical significance requires a p-value of 0.05 or less) there is a very clear cut separation between the 2 curves. NeuVax is favored with an approximate 50% relative risk reduction in recurrence at 3 years (in another word, it cut the risk of recurrence by half). Observing this trend in itself is very impressive to the oncology community, due to the fact that there is a clear hint that the vaccine is effective in some ways. Now it is a matter of figuring out which subset of population gains the greatest benefit.

    Looking further into the trial, the investigators at this point knew that there was something there that could truly benefit our patients. For such reasons, a subset analysis was performed looking at all patients that had Her-2, 1+ and 2+ excluding the patient whom where Her-2 , 3+(and thus received herceptin). Out the 97 patients that were evaluated, 45 patients met those criteria.

    The graph below is from the Galena website which once again delineates the outcome data. This is what created great enthusiasm in the oncology community. When this data was presented at our oncology meeting, my colleagues and I were very excited about the possibilities of this vaccine.

    Looking at this subset analysis we see a 100% relative risk reduction in progression-free survival. Let me say that again because it is that important. At the 3 year evaluation there was a 100% improvement in the risk of relapse compared to the control group. Put another way, no patient relapsed in the vaccine group compared to 22.2% in the control group with a p-value of 0.035 which is statistically significant. In the oncology community, this data is some of the most impressive we have seen in any cancer trial.

    At this time, I would like once more to reference Matt Gravitt's editorial when he says:

    "The problem that I have with this data is that the sub-groups were too small to justify a successful study. In my opinion, the disease-free survival benefit in this sub-group is random chance. Basically, I believe it was pure luck that the control group had a few more patients with recurrence of breast cancer."

    I believe Mr. Gravitt's understanding of biostatistics may be a bit shaky. As a reminder, a P-value of less than or equal to 0.05 indicates statistical significance. A P-value ≤ 0.05 then means that the sample size was adequate and that these results were not due to "chance" or "pure luck" but instead represent a scientifically valid, significant, and reproducible finding. Let me remind you that in this subset analysis the p-value was 0.035. I will leave it at that.

    (click to enlarge)

    I do agree with one point made by Mr. Gravitt, namely that this is a subset analysis and a more definite Phase III trial is needed to fully elucidate the possibilities raised by this data. In fact, this data was deemed compelling enough that the FDA gave a special protocol assessment (SPA) to do the Phase III PRESENT trial which is currently ongoing. In my opinion, science suggests that this will be a very successful study. I will explain my reasoning below.

    On its own, the current data is very impressive. It reminds me of the lung cancer study that was done by Dr. Hanna et. al. and published in 2004 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. This was a non-inferiority study looking at stage IV non-small cell lung cancer patients and comparing the use of Alimta (pemetrexed, Eli Lilly) to the standard of care at that time. The study met its end point and thus was a positive study. What was most impressive in that trial was the subset analysis that showed an increased benefit in patients with non-squamous histology favoring Alimta. This lead to multiple phase III trials in the front line setting and in maintenance therapy which would eventually lead to a change in the paradigm of lung cancer treatment. Alimta became the gold standard in the therapy of non-squamous cell lung cancer patients.

    Obviously we cannot compare these two studies, but Dr. Hanna's study can be seen as a preview of how clinical trials can progress through the oncology community. A subset analysis showing a statistically significant benefit can translate into a very successful Phase III trial. This is why we in the oncology community are all hopeful that the PRESENT study will be a positive trial.

    Let's go back to Matt Gravitt's editorial.

    "If NeuVax truly worked, why is the study aimed to treat patients who are already disease free? I predict that NeuVax will not meet the primary outcome of the PRESENT Phase III trial. In fact, I also predict the PRESENT trial won't even continue past the interim analysis."

    This only represents Mr. Gravitt's lack of understanding of the natural progression of breast cancer. High-risk patients, including the node-positive patients enrolled in the PRESENT study, are treated with surgery, followed by chemotherapy and radiation as needed. After surgery, the patients could be considered "cancer free". But chemotherapy is given to reduce the risk of relapse. If the Phase III trial is successful, the risk of relapse could then be further reduced with NeuVax. By Mr. Gravitt's logic, there is no reason to give chemotherapy to these breast cancer patients, since they are already "disease-free." But this is only a matter of semantics, since preventing relapse is as important as treating the initial cancer. Our goal as oncologists is to use all means at our disposal to reduce that risk to our patients.

    In my medical opinion the interim analysis will be favorable and very encouraging to our patients and will lead to one more step forward in the fight against breast cancer.

    1. Abstral - a sigh of relief for our patients with cancer-related pain

    Although I am not discussing clinical trial data in this case, I would like to provide some insight into the management of pain in cancer patients. As an oncologist, I feel compelled to address the comments made by Adam Feuerstein in his biotech blog, entitled "Galena, free fentanyl samples and the 'zombie apocalypse.'" Here he is quoting John Hempton's blog post on brontecapital.blogspot.com:

    "Galena's hot new product is a sublingual version of an old drug. The marketing (on their website) argues this drug is really fast. To quote: "Patients preferred Abstral for speed". However to give it that extra marketing pizazz they are giving it away. Here is the pitch - which I believe as a matter of policy should be criminalized.* [I note that tobacco companies are not allowed to give free samples of cigarettes - and it is curious that same does not apply here.] The advert has an irony of its own. It shows a new-age style woman completely blissed out (with a smiling kid) and the slogan "time better spent." We have US corporations doing hippy-alternative-lifestyle drug marketing for drugs that are especially effective in turning you into a zombie. Capitalism meets the zombie apocalypse.It is as if Tim Leary was reincarnated as a cynical capitalist going for the mega-dollars."

    In light of the severe pain that my cancer patients experience on a daily basis, I find these comments disingenuous and rather insulting.

    First of all, it is ludicrous to compare a prescription drug intended to relieve pain in cancer patients to a known carcinogen like cigarettes. This is casting doubt on the safety of this medication with absolutely no scientific evidence to back up such spurious claims. And this is a medication that is very much needed. Although I treat cancer patients every day, I can't begin to imagine the experience of cancer-related pain, and I believe that neither can anyone that is not going through it. But let give you a small insight. Pain control can mean the difference to these patients between being bedridden in agony or having quality time with their children and grand-children, or enjoying the little things such walking in the park during the few days, weeks or months they have left on this planet. It is truly insulting to Galena Biopharma, to physicians and to our patients that you believe we are making our patients like zombies for financial gain.

    To address the suggestion that Abstral is being given away in an attempt to create addicts, let me remind you that this is a controlled substance whose purpose is to alleviate the torture that cancer pain can inflict on our patients. Samples of this medication were provided for licensed physicians to dispense to our patients, not handed out on the street to anyone passing by. Pain control in cancer patients is not a "hippy-alternative-lifestyle," as Hempton (and by association, Fuerstein) so callously suggests. It is a matter of life or death. Would you argue that "time better spent" would not be with one's child in a state of relative comfort and calm, but rather writhing in agony? What is truly criminal is your lack compassion for the suffering of cancer patients.

    Let us go back to what really matters. We in the oncology community understand that pain control has always been a very important part of what we do for our patients. After all, our goal is to improve the lives of our patients even when there is no possibility for a cure. The limitation we always run into is the length of time that conventional pain medication takes to work. My colleagues and I believe that this therapy is a useful addition to our armamentarium when it comes to controlling our patients' pain and improving their quality of life. I can definitely envision this medication being used more and more in the near future, and not, as you suggest, by "zombies." Abstral's mechanism of action and rapid onset is self-explanatory and I can project that it will be widely used in emergency departments, in hospitals for patients that don't have an IV or other venous access, and for cancer and other chronic disease patients who require rapid relief of breakthrough pain.

    This is the first article I have written about a biotech company. The only reason I did so is because of the multiple infuriating and inaccurate statements that have been posted recently about the oncology community acting only for the almighty dollar. It is easy to malign others when you have no understanding of the day-to-day struggles involved in cancer care.

    It is also very easy to write a negative article about a company for a self-serving purpose, especially when you ignore the facts and make unsupported assumptions and wild predictions. It is a much more difficult to approach the matter from a scientific perspective and let the data speak for itself. As a company, Galena has put in years of hard work to provide a vaccine that holds great promise for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence and a fast-acting opioid that can provide relief for our patient's worst pain. I find it difficult to fault them for that.

    Disclosure: I am long on GALE. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I was never contacted by Galena Biopharma and I am not receiving any compensation from the company or any of it's associated parties

    Disclosure: I am long GALE.

    Themes: Biotech Stocks: GALE
Back To Mohamed Farhat'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 (115)
Track new comments
  • SA_member_22608541
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Oh wow imagine this. A well written article on this site about Gale. Thank you for writing this and refuting those hacks who spout off on here.
    14 Feb, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • Roaddriver
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    AMIN............
    16 Feb, 12:40 AM Reply Like
  • MichaelJ8
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    thanks for the article. It truly is a shame the crooks are having their way with the stock right now, but then again, I can buy more for cheap! if the world gives you lemons, make lemonade.
    14 Feb, 06:22 PM Reply Like
  • Kboyd78
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    Nicely done I'm a physician as well could not have said it better myself. These finance guys like playing doctor problem they are awful actors. I'm happy to pick up more shares for less though.
    14 Feb, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • KCATTY
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    Is there any way you would consider providing your name so that we can verify that you are an oncologist? You could privately message me and I give you my word that your name will never be known. I was long GALE at 2.17 for the same reasons you cite in your article. I took profits that were too big for me to leave on the table. I think these short attacks might be creating good entry points.
    14 Feb, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • Robert.from.Ct
    , contributor
    Comments (354) | Send Message
     
    PLEASE submit this article to Seeking Alpha for publication so more people will read it.
    If they say it is too long divide the article in part 1 then the next day part 2
    This is the best article I have read on this subject and I have read every one of them on Seeking Alpha
    PLEASE shine the light for EVERYONE to see.
    Very few people will find this on your Instablog
    Seeking Alpha also allows you to publish and remain anonymous.
    Regards and God bless you
    14 Feb, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Jim Bowie
    , contributor
    Comments (30) | Send Message
     
    Just my opinion. Reads worth sharing have a way of finding their way around. One might wonder just how close to the company this writer is to not want to identify him/her self. Also, it may have been submitted but rejected due to reasons we don't know by SA review.
    Very well done 16205102, and thanks for sharing.
    14 Feb, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • Nataku
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    Yes please submit this as an official article..
    14 Feb, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • StepUp
    , contributor
    Comments (420) | Send Message
     
    Well written article. Unfortunately, and especially given all the controversy surrounding this company, I can't take this information as serious due diligence since you have chosen to remain anonymous and your account was created just to publish this one article. You anonymity actually give you less credibility than those writing bull arguments but I would say that your actual arguments are more valid.

     

    If you could disclose your name so that we knew were an actual doctor it would be best.
    14 Feb, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    I guess I'm confused as to why you need to know his name. Why are you not able to digest what he's written and decide for yourself if there is credibility to it? Quite frankly, this article is well-written, well-supported with facts, and cites facts and studies that the reader can easily look up for confirmation.

     

    I could care less if it was written by an oncologist or a phlebotomist. The merit is in the message.

     

    And what I find odd is that investors will blindly follow the 'message' of punks like Matt Gravitt and Adam Feuerstein, whose arguments are so easily refuted because they are utter nonsense, yet these same people feel the need to question inconsequential points of arguments that have a solid foundation.

     

    Can't anyone think critically anymore?
    14 Feb, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • WallST.cz
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Conversely. The critical thinking and skepticism is the basis for any scientific research.
    15 Feb, 05:23 AM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    I believe the author is physician, since the liunon medical wording sounds very familiar to me, because many of my friends and some family members are physicians.
    15 Feb, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • PoolSkunk
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Being risk averse involves critical thinking.

     

    So, "blindly follow[ing] the 'message'" of anonymous oncologists is somehow a better action than following the corroborated research of disclosed authors? Why? Because they represent your self interest? Imagine that.
    18 Feb, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    Blindly following any message is always a poor decision. My point is to review and think about what is written, and not who wrote it, a message you clearly didn't understand in my post. Which, almost by definition, puts you into the "blindly follow" category, since comprehension of text doesn't seem to be a strong suit of yours.
    18 Feb, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • subrkaus3
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    Very good article on GALE.
    15 Feb, 12:20 AM Reply Like
  • hkny
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Doctor myself although not an oncologist, totally agree with you 100% and very well written points. I think that most investors are not realizing the fact that the ONLY thing that really matters is the science behind these trials and once the trials show statistical significance, galena will do well. Everything else does not matter. Having reviewed these trials over and over, I am totally confident in this company. I agree that this information might be a bit hard to comprehend especially if you don't have a science background, but this is a biotech company and the science is the only thing that matters for the sake of future earnings,. No one will remember that they hired a stupid PR firm when neuvax is approved. Adam, gravitas, etc are just background noise as mark ahn said in the the last conference . Galena is focused on getting the science right and soon we will all know and the chance of that happening is quite high based on the already known phase 2.
    15 Feb, 05:27 AM Reply Like
  • jpcmd91
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I am a pain physician and I want to thank you for this outstanding, fact based article. I am the president of the Alabama chapter of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. So there you go, I'm not anonymous and I agree with everything put forth in this article. Abstral is an outstanding addition to our armamentarium for treating advanced malignancy related pain.

     

    J.Patrick Couch, MD
    15 Feb, 05:37 AM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Thank you DR. J.Patrick Couch, MD. The fact that you agreed to disclose your name is very important. I realize the risk so thank you for sharing this.
    18 Feb, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • superpavel
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the insight, it all sounds just great. Now lets hope that the provided by Galena is a 100% true data... I have nothing against their stock promotion campaign, neihter do I care how much they cash in. All I care is if their product pipeline has any prospects and is scientifically sound. So far everything they say seems slightly waterish. Today I flushed my shares taking 33% damage.
    15 Feb, 06:01 AM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    The data is most probably 100% correct. Why? The data is copied from peer-reviewed published presentations by lead investigators. It is even verified (this way or another) by the FDA (e.g. in order to approve the phase III protocol).
    So the data itself is 100% correct. Still Galena decides which data to publish or emphasize. But if you read through the entire presentation you'll get the whole picture.
    18 Feb, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Jareleft
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    I enjoyed reading your article, I hope it's the first of many articles on biotechnology

     

    Congratulations
    15 Feb, 06:43 AM Reply Like
  • liontrade
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    long waited professionals view, thanks
    But I am not happy with Galena team's insider sell for small money, which give the stock market sharks enough excuse to make gale looks like a scam hurting the true investors.
    15 Feb, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    I agree with you, however a non profitable (so far) can not award bonus to the top officers the only way is they can grab benefit from open market that why they are offered long term options,this will happen again in the future and it happens among other companies.The important is nothing change fundamentally,people will question why those insiders sold equities almost simultaneously?the answer is timing-Mr Cramer pushed the bottom,the bears come,but it is a drama and now is approaching the end of this drama.
    15 Feb, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Roaddriver
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    I'm sure they will buy back.........
    16 Feb, 12:50 AM Reply Like
  • liontrade
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    fundamentally the team leaders are destroying the company by losing the trust of many loyal investors who believe and hope NeuVax will work.
    This looks real bad to me.
    16 Feb, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • ProtoCola
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    liontrade...
    Actually, they don't need the emotional weak-handed retail investors...all they need are retail investors who've done the requisite DD along with the institutional investors who've snapped up most of the shaky-handed shares dumped last week. You will see the institutions continue to purchase into next week as their percentage of GALE holdings continue to grow:
    http://bit.ly/1gzQr2B

     

    P.S.: I commend this author also (User 16205102), Thanks!
    16 Feb, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Ironically speaking,telecommunica... interview for company leader with Cramer usually advocates the company's equity,that all GALE shareholders anticipated,but the interview between Cramer and Ahn on Jan 16 becomes a disaster for Gale, my advise to Mr. Ahn : never meet Mr. Cramer again!!!
    16 Feb, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    I do feel that the management as a whole created a big problem by selling all these options. They certainly could exercise just part of them. Take some money now, take more later. One may interpret it like this: Even if management do believe the PRESENT trial will succeed they feel the stock price is just too high. So the sell could just signal market value disbelief while the trial will succeed and the FDA eventually will approve the E75
    18 Feb, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Actually I liked Mr. Ahn answers. The questions prompted me to do some more DD. The further I dig my confidence in $GALE grows. So this interview better prepared me for the deep dip that happened since.
    18 Feb, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    That means you don't think data and facts are important, but assumptions and opinions do. So your cup is full.
    21 Feb, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    So it seems you have some numerical distinctions here; what is your numerical difference between your statements "by selling all these options. They certainly could exercise just part of them"

     

    How much for you is "all these"?
    How much for you is "part of them"?

     

    That's the issue.
    But management didn't sell "all", that would mean zero is left. Maybe you mean 'a majority'. That didn't happen to.

     

    So maybe you just think owners should never sell, or they sell as much as you would.

     

    So really it is an emotional opinion, not numerical.
    21 Feb, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • dale639
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Fantastic article. You've made Gravitt's arguments completey obsolete. Hopefully people will read this and understand how terribly they've been mislead. Then again, this is an intelligent article requiring some level of scientific understanding, which unfortauntely most biotech investors do not have. Thanks again for taking the time to write this.
    15 Feb, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • ProtoCola
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Just as a bit of insight...MG's arguments are not only obsolete, but may be tinged w/emotion which undermines his subjectivity & calls into question his motives for writing such rubbish in the first place. You see, since his wife's ironic diagnosis of breast cancer, MG sees fit in his own twisted mind to hinder the advancement of adjuvant therapy for other women as a "scorched earth mindset". He may view her diagnosis as a death sentence; using his own twisted logic to think that if his wife loses her battle w/breast cancer then all those struggling should go down w/his wife & face the same fate. Oh, by the way, I have a PhD in Behavioral Psych which I've never revealed after almost 90 postings, but in this case it is very pertinent.
    16 Feb, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • mmilatov
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for sharing...you are a beautiful inside and out.

     

    MM
    17 Feb, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • garyflaks
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Thank you fro taking the time to write this.
    15 Feb, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • whyohwhy
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Dr.

     

    Thanks for your excellent commentary here. You make some excellent points. Although you say you are only addressing the science here, doesn't it bother you that GALE management allegedly hired a pr firm that mounted a highly unethical pr campaign and then company insiders dumped millions in shares?

     

    Furthermore, the company....so far....has supplied no adequate explanation of this pr company's actions.
    15 Feb, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • rocketjock
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Typical Feuerstein henchman short. Can't fight the science anymore so has to resort to silly made up conspiracy theories.
    16 Feb, 02:20 AM Reply Like
  • Mr_Bio
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Beautifully written. A fantastic presentation of FACTS with clinical experience mixed in.

     

    I very much appreciate your level-headed rebuttals to the claims of AF and others who have have published misleading commentaries. There is no need to personally attack those individuals no matter how wrong or misleading we believe their comments to be, but rather, let the presentation of facts do all the speaking.

     

    This is how an article should be written. No ridiculous conclusions drawn, not much speculation based on unsubstantiated data, no telling people what to think or believe. Just data, history, and context - let the readers make up their own minds.

     

    I applaud you, Sir.
    15 Feb, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • karibruce
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    As a medical professional, I also applaud this article as balanced presentation of the facts to date. The clinical trail data to date are amazingly compelling. Can the data in Ph 3 come close to this? We don't know. Have seen several biotechs with terrific PH 2 data, but htey crash and burn on larger PH 3 trail (example ONTY). Then the beautiful thing here for an investor is to buy on dips in price and sell when it goes up. Recoup your initial investment, then you can hold shares as long as it takes, or as long as you are comfortable. My guess for near term is more price pressure as law firms pursue this company. I am comfortable considering further investing moves in and out of this stock.
    Is there greed and corruption going on here with the company and/or various authors? Yes I'm sure there is. Does that impact the scientific results? Only if the results to date have been fudged. This also has happened with other companies, but I am not accusing Galena of that.
    For long term, I really hope this treatment is successful. Twenty years ago I was looking at the Her2 marker on breast cancer cells in laboratory, before current treatments were developed. Was sad that so many of those patients died. We need this treatment since only about 15 to 20% of breast cancer patients are Her2 3+, and eligible for treatment with Herceptin, etc.
    15 Feb, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • jsIRA
    , contributor
    Comments (2324) | Send Message
     
    Great Article. It is lucky that this article is in Blog not in SA article. I would like GALE goes lower so I can buy cheaper.

     

    Long on GALE.
    16 Feb, 07:44 AM Reply Like
  • The Pro
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    I know of MG. Bottom of the barrel trying hard to make himself known. The fact that his wife has come down with breast cancer is quite ironic to say the least.
    16 Feb, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • bluesfreak
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Very well-written article. I have a graduate degree in the social sciences, don't laugh, and it helped me to understand the statistics you presented. Thanks for taking the time to write this.
    16 Feb, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • KCODD
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Well Written.
    16 Feb, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Nataku
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    LOL where are all the shorts and their comments? Can't anyone refute this article??
    16 Feb, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    The article refutes itself. One cannot compare post-hoc retrospective data-mining (NeuVax slides) with the results from prospective studies (Yervoy, Provenge).

     

    Further, one cannot compare a peptide vaccine (NeuVax) with a monoclonal antibody (Yervoy) or a dendritic cell vaccine (Provenge). It is comparing apples to oranges to pears.

     

    An actual researcher (well frankly ANYONE) with an IQ over 100 would know that.

     

    You might want to look up what happened to ITMN's former CEO when he was hyping a drug based on a retrospective data mined analysis. Hint...it wasn't very fun for him.
    16 Feb, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Nataku
    , contributor
    Comments (70) | Send Message
     
    In this case, apples to oranges to pears is fine, because the common denominator is fruit. The author is not comparing apples to lumps of coal. It would be like so say "apples are edible, so lets test whether oranges are edible since they share the same category: fruits."

     

    The author did not bring up Yervoy and Provenge as a comparison to say "look these worked so Neuvax will work." It was to show that vaccine-based treatment is not something that Galena came out with as a shot in the dark, but rather treatment that is built on the proven efficacy of other vaccines.

     

    If you really can't get past apples and oranges, just skip past those paragraphs and talk about the rest of the article. What exactly is untrue or misrepresented?
    16 Feb, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Nataku

     

    NeuVax is not built on the proven efficacy of other vaccines.

     

    The only prospective data on NeuVax proves that it DOES NOT work. NeuVax FAILED its Phase 2 testing. That is why Galena is resorting to retrospective subgroup data mining.

     

    Not all vaccines are the same. The author is comparing three completely different things. NeuVax is a peptide, Yervoy is a monoclonal antibody and Provenge is a dendritic cell vaccine.

     

    The comparison is completely unwarranted.

     

    The only thing they all have in common is that they are injected.
    16 Feb, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • The Pro
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    You are comparing apples to oranges, you fruitcake!
    16 Feb, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    @BuyersStrikeWP:
    NeuVax phase II not failed but not reliable because its p value, but it revealed very significant message the E75 can stir the immu system. You and AF and others may doubt "how can we establish a subset within the existed set but using the same event test data?" We can consult statistic expert for answer and I think this is most core point the people held the negative view to NeuVax ,it is also the meaning AF's"cherry pick"."filter" in a set elements to form another set is meaning if those element are not w/same properties and the p value is in valid range.If we go back to look the chart the vaccine group always appears the same type it definitely the vaccine is effective.
    Vaccine for cancer is to treat gene it is different for vaccine for virus, at test stage the statistic data deviation will be large than vaccine for virus test data. IMO phase II of NeuVax is acceptable .
    16 Feb, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    BuyersStrikeWP,

     

    "The only prospective data on NeuVax proves that it DOES NOT work. NeuVax FAILED its Phase 2 testing. That is why Galena is resorting to retrospective subgroup data mining."

     

    I have to assume that those with no association with GALE understand this, who approved the Phase III study. So, my response to you is..............SO WHAT?? If the P value in the subgroup is statistically significant, SO WHAT?

     

    If those in charge of approving the Phase III study thought it was insignificant the study wouldn't be approved, would it?

     

    And, btw, if anyone has information on who manages these studies and how it is determined which ones get approved, I'd love to have access to that info.
    17 Feb, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Bryce

     

    I appreciate that you are truly trying to learn. So I am going to turn off my usual snark. This is sort of FDA 101.

     

    Studies are not "approved" by the FDA or any other government entity in the US, drugs (& devices, & biologics) are. If a company wants to run a study, even a stupid one, they are free to do so. Let me repeat that, if a company wants to run a phase 3 study they are free to do so, even if it is a bad idea.

     

    Now there is what is known as an IRB (Institutional Review Board) which will review the study at the study site to ensure patient safety. But this review has no bearing on the success or failure of a study. Nor does it have any bearing on whether or not the study was properly designed.

     

    There is no-one (outside of GALE mgmt) "in charge of approving the Phase III study"

     

    As to the p-value, it would be statistically significant and meaningful if (and only if) it was part of the prospective study design. The NeuVax charts presented are RETROSPECTIVE data-mining.

     

    If you do not understand the difference between prospective and retrospective, you need to do some more basic homework.

     

    I respect that you are asking these questions and want to understand. The more you know they less likely you are to fall for scams.

     

    As to who manages the studies (remember there is no-one who "approves" of them in the way you likely mean), that is in the hands of the Primary Investigator (aka the "PI"), who is often being paid by the "sponsor".

     

    So when you look at a study, look at the Sponsor, and understand that the Sponsor is usually paying the PI.

     

    Oftentimes hypesters will say such-and-such company is doing a study at Harvard, so it must be good.

     

    That is pure bs. They are trying to use the prestige of an institution to fool you. All it means is that the sponsor is PAYING Harvard to run the study. Nothing more. It does not mean Harvard (or MD Anderson or UCLA etc) "likes", "thinks it will work" or "approves" of the drug being studied. It means they are being paid.

     

    Does this make things clearer?
    17 Feb, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    Thanks, BuyerstrikeWP, I wasn't aware of how the trial process is managed.
    17 Feb, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    The only problem is that BuyersStrikeWP has 'arranged' his comments to prove his already determined conclusion, and has excluded points that would swing you the other way.

     

    For example, ALL clinical platforms, whether they are done by big pharma, small pharma or biotechs, pay the Investigators to run the trial, for the simple reason that it costs money to recruit patients and perform the procedures of a protocol. So, by saying that you can't trust an Investigator's opinion on a trial because he is paid, you are damning ALL clinical trials. And it's not that they are paid for their opinion, they are paid in the same was a contractor would be paid to build a house. They are paid for work performed, not for opinions.

     

    And, as for the re-positioning of Neuvax to a specific population of the indication, this does happen. A lot, in fact. You might have heard of a drug called Viagra. It was initially developed as a heart medication. Funny thing, though: the male pts were having a curious side effect. Ever hear of minoxydal? Also developed initially as a heart medication. Pts started growing hair. And a lot of other lesser known drugs have had their targeted populations altered during the testing process.

     

    It is not unusual for this to happen.

     

    None of this means of course that Neuvax will work, but the reasons that BuyersStrike is using to prove that Neuvax won't work can be applied to practically every drug in development.

     

    Meaning, it's a meaningless argument.
    17 Feb, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    "As to the p-value, it would be statistically significant and meaningful if (and only if) it was part of the prospective study design. The NeuVax charts presented are RETROSPECTIVE data-mining. "

     

    This is what I don't understand. Why can't you pull out, from a trial, statistically significant results from a subgroup within the overall population? .
    17 Feb, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Rocketman33
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    You idiot !

     

    IMHO

     

    Read the following from clinpages

     

    "An SPA, they explained, is a declaration from the FDA that an uncompleted Phase III trial's design, clinical endpoints, and statistical analyses are acceptable for support of regulatory approval later, after the trial has concluded. It's the FDA's way of saying: If you execute this trial exactly as you promise you will, and the data are there, this drug will get approved.

     

    And that's bind. Unless the science around the research changes or a new public health concern emerges that impacts the agreement, the FDA has to honor it once the Phase III trial is done. That is, as long as the sponsor has followed the agreed-upon protocol to the letter, and the data support the efficacy and safety of the product.

     

    “It's an opportunity to take some specific steps under SPA to cement some agreements as best as can be done during the dynamic development process,” said David Cocchetto, V.P. of U.S. regulatory affairs for GSK. During the session, he quoted a blogger as saying, “An SPA is about as binding a deal as you can get with a government agency.” Cocchetto laughed, and agreed.

     

    45-Day Turnaround

     

    Not only that, but SPAs happen fast, he explained. The FDA asserts that, if the sponsor duly completes the request package, the agency will turn around a SPA in 45 days. That includes answers to the sponsor's questions about the protocol and detailed comments on it."

     

    http://bit.ly/1nzrAgr
    19 Feb, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • Retiredmm
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Everyone has said it all and this article is outstanding and founded in scientific truth. AF, JC and the rest of the financial community should be ashamed of their reporting such sloppy information. Wake up folks. That said and with over 40 years of marketing experience in RX I am really disappointed in the management of Galena for their actions of allowing an aggressive PR firm to hype their company in what I consider almost a slanderous way and I also am very disappointed, for whatever reason they think valid, that the management bailed out of the company by selling their stock showing me that unlike the author of this article who is a compassionate and caring health care provider, the management of Galena seems more interested in lining their own pockets than protecting the interest of the patients the profess to want to help. I have faced cancer death with a father and daughter and I have witnessed patients in pain from cancer. I am long on this company not because I believe in their management any longer but because I believe in their products and the clinical results that the selfish, instant gratification money mongers seem to not care about. May God protect their families since they don't seem to care about improving health. This countries health care system and drug development environment is in a death spiral and it's time we wake up and take notice.
    16 Feb, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Don't you feel management had an obligation (or need) to promote the company in order to get the much needed private funding rounds. Last year they raised about $60M from private funds. I am almost sure that without the heavy PR campaign this would not been possible. Now without that type of money they could not advance the PRESENT (phase III trial) at a reasonable pace. I don't like the aggressive PR either but that's the way things work with investors.
    20 Feb, 02:09 AM Reply Like
  • Scottali
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    GREAT ARTICLE DOC!As a long options trader, the noise is all I hear, price of stock going up and down is all games, manipulation by certain short interest groups. You do your DD and filter everything out, and what you get is your initial belief for what you got in this company for. I believe in the company and am invested heavily, I have no fear of loosing here. As time passes and the one with pateince will win big here. GLTAL
    16 Feb, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    I appreciate this article very much. But without knowing who you are, I don't know if I should consider it totally credible, partly, or not at all. I mean no disrespect. I would like to see a clearer picture of the science behind the vaccine and understand better the people who are behind it.

     

    Are you in any way associated with Galena Biopharma, other than an investor in their stock?

     

    The co-inventor of Neuvax, Constantin Ioannides, has been sued by Galena, apparently because he isn't getting paid as agreed to for his invention (vaccine), according to him, as best I can decipher, and he has said some things on SeekingAlpha which Galena doesn't like. Again, this doesn't put Galena in a good light for me.

     

    Mr. Feuerstein has written a couple of articles (in links below) which are troubling to me, but I don't understand the science. Is it possible that Galena has manipulated the data in the Phase II trial to obtain a favorable outcome for the Phase III? Can you respond to Mr. Feuerstein's claims, since I find nothing where Galena has?

     

    http://bit.ly/IPiIjJ

     

    http://bit.ly/LuW3fx

     

    Just seeking to quell the doubts in my mind over Galena, after the huge stock sales by a good number of insiders. I am currently long GALE, but seeking more information on both the science and the people who run the company.
    17 Feb, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    I would say that if you can't simply read and comprehend the argument made by this author, at face value, and determine whether it has merit, you shouldn't be investing in biotech. Not sure why the initials MD after his name should make a difference.
    17 Feb, 03:58 AM Reply Like
  • tommy1954
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
     
    Bryce,

     

    Purely on Constantin Ioannides, his complaint goes back to his days at Apthera and with certain directors there, they really have little to do with Gale or Mark Ahn.
    17 Feb, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • StepUp
    , contributor
    Comments (420) | Send Message
     
    @PMan don't be naive. The authors credentials make a huge difference. The author agrees they make a difference or he/she would not have led the article with: "I am a board-certified medical oncologist and hematologist in one of the largest oncology groups in the Midwest." and he/she would not have used a caduceus as their profile photo.

     

    Would you put more trust in an article touting the efficacy of a drug therapy written by a physician or one written by a plumber?

     

    This author chose to remain anonymous (and created a brand new SA account to post this article) and there could be good reason for that. It was obviously well written and obviously came from someone with medical knowledge but it is a completely anonymous article on a public internet site and it therefore gets the credibility it deserves; NONE.

     

    Also don't lose site of the fact that the current controversy is not regarding the efficacy of the science behind Gale's products (which frankly seem way better than most biotech companies out there). The current controversy is about managements credibility. They have admitted to hiring the DreamTeam Group. When they sold shares is a matter public record. They only question is if they intentionally pumped and dumped their own stock. If they did, I don't care how good their drug is or may be in the future, I am not buying their stock.
    17 Feb, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    P Man, first, before anything else, I am interested in knowing if the doctor is in anyway associated with Galena. That is number one for me. Such an association could mean bias in regards to the contents of the article and I would have to discount the information. The fact that no one has asked that question tells me you don't really want to know, bias in favor of GALE.

     

    I am interested in the truth, no matter how that falls, in favor of GALE or not.

     

    Secondly, I don't have a science background, so I am interested in Mr. Feuerstein's claims and an answer from someone with the knowledge to understand them and to make comments about them. I don't know if the doctor is aware of how the Phase II individuals were chosen and how each was assigned to the vaccine group or the control group. If not, that could influence the interpretation of the Phase II results, IMO.

     

    I mean no disrespect to the doctor. I believe these are legitimate questions that need to be answered.

     

    Thirdly, Mr. Ioannides is a member of SA and his comments are directed at Mr. Schwartz, the COO of GALE. I find them relevant to GALE's current management.
    17 Feb, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • jeepman58
    , contributor
    Comments (166) | Send Message
     
    The author has presented a good analysis for investors to consider. 9 out of 10 analysts (only thestreet disagrees) has GALE rated a buy. Abstral has 25% of the cancer pain relief market in Europe and is just starting in the USA. Daily stock price bashing continues around GALE.

     

    "Distrust and caution are the parents of security" and "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see" - words to the wise from Benjamin Franklin. And from a relative of mine: "just because it's written doesn't make it true".
    17 Feb, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Bryce:
    Thank you the links you provided. I carefully read AF' articles from the linked website. I will say AF might be good reporter in antibody field that is virus/ bacteria medicine not good enough be a reporter in gene medicine. We all know gene itself is a variable, for instance chemo treatment for same stage cancer patients some patients will be effective by chemo but some are not. It depends many factors : health history, life style, family history....etc. gene treatment not just probability but the trend of probability. Can NeuVax phase II result be exploration of phase III trial? I predict it is positive and eventually FDA will approve it. Because cancer cure doesn't mean 100% recurrence free, at present time only if the medicine can offer patients less recurrence probability and extend life I will say this medicine is valuable one. Cancer is No.1 enemy for mankind, we see some light for saving patients' lives it will take long time for us to get knowledge to improve medical system to save more patients. Just like even NeuVax get approved there should be 2nd,3rd,...generations NeuVax.
    17 Feb, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    The "argument from authority" is a classic error in reasoning.

     

    Q. What do you call the person who graduated last in his class at med school?

     

    A. Doctor
    17 Feb, 05:18 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @jeepman58

     

    Abstral sales in the US began in February 2011. It is NOT a new product. Abstral was not launched in October, no matter what Mark Ahn says, the sales charts are available and prove my point.
    17 Feb, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Liupapa

     

    NeuVax is not a gene therapy. It is a peptide vaccine. It has nothing to do with genetic medicine.
    17 Feb, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    BuyerStrike is correct in the sense that, why is knowing whether this guy is a doctor or not is relevant? If he's not a doctor, his opinion doesn't count, but if he is one, it does? That's a silly logical test, don't you think? You are thus stating that doctors are never wrong, never lie, or are never biased, and that non-doctors are always wrong, always lie and are always biased.

     

    Ask the art, not the artist.

     

    Or, as Al McGuire once said, "Half of all doctors finished in the bottom 50% of their class".

     

    Put your trust and instincts into what the argument is, not who's making it.
    17 Feb, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    You also call a Dr. the one that graduated first. Your point is kind of void.
    18 Feb, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    That makes zero sense. You obviously didn't understand my post.
    18 Feb, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    A: I agree to "Ask the art, not the artist".
    B: I disagree that the assertion that the article being published by a certified physician does not bear significance. While it is true that doctors are wrong, do lie and are biased (to reflect your words), it is also true that even the one that graduated last in his/her class graduated above all the other that did not made it.
    So may be now you understand my post.
    20 Feb, 02:11 AM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    There are 'certified' physicians on the buy side and 'certified' physicians on the sell side. For every company and every drug platform. Having a battle of dueling degrees is pointless. Mutual assured destruction.

     

    Just look at the logic of the argument. That is what an investor should do.
    20 Feb, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    I like the fact no one ever asks for the background of a critic!
    What are Adam fuerstein's (sp) credentials? If one is right every once in a while, it doesn't make one a forensic scientist.
    21 Feb, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    Let me ask a question -- does it matter what the credentials are if someone says 1+1 is 2?
    So the facts and their meaning is the only point.
    21 Feb, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    Last in med class is better than first in journalism if I'm going to get treated with medicine.
    21 Feb, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    So where are these sales charts and who spent money selling it?
    Since being 'available' seems to be enough, why aren't you using DR-DOS on your PC?
    21 Feb, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    Again, Last in med class is better than first in journalism if I'm going to get treated with medicine.
    21 Feb, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Bryce:
    Thank you for the links I read the AF articles in 2012, I think AF is a good reporter for general medicins(virus, bacteria ) not good enough for gene medicine as a reporter. Cancer treatment research is dealing trend of probability not probability alone. Chemo for same stage of cancer patients can prevent recurrence for some one but Not valid for another. NeuVax phase II "filter" the main group but establish another group with certain restrictions sounds good results .this is general research finding nothing illogical . AF ever question the subgroup t patients having better health condition is his bias because the p value of this sub group speaks all the influential factors involved. Can phase II result be an exploration a phase III results I predict positive and many physicians as I know hold positive attitude and I think FDA will eventually approve it. Because a cancer medicine at present only if can reduce or lighten the decease not expect 100% cure or prevent the decease in other word it can cure few than none than cure more than few !this medicine is valuable , even this medicine should combine with other medicine to achieve some cure efficiency.
    Cancer is no.one enemy for mankind . Need more time to understand the picture, medicine can only extend the patient 's life time would be a valuable medicine. Even NeuVax be approved there will 2nd , 3 rd generation etc. I also like to say all of us regardless sick or not old or not for extend our life time not just for cancer patients.
    17 Feb, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    Liupapa,

     

    From Mr. Feuerstein's May 22, 2012 article:
    " The breast cancer patients treated with NeuVax in the phase II study were much healthier compared to the breast cancer patients funneled into the control group. This imbalance in the baseline patient characteristics easily skewed the DFS/recurrence rate in favor of NeuVax. "

     

    http://bit.ly/LuW3fx

     

    If this is fact, this could skew the P value, IMO, and not give an accurate result, based on the P value. Its like a coin that has a flaw in it. It won't give an accurate probability of how many heads and tails you will achieve over time with an unflawed coin, because it is flawed.

     

    There appear to be factors, other than an effective vaccine, which play into the P value, namely the conditions of the patients in both the vaccine and the control group. If those conditions aren't about equal in both groups, it appears to me it could skew the P value and yield inaccurate results in regards to whether the vaccine is effective or not.

     

    What I don't understand is, with lives at stake, why in the world has no one debated this until it is clear it is valid or not?
    17 Feb, 05:53 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    He gave no evidence of this healthy versus unhealthy argument. In fact, this has been brought up before, and has been refuted before.

     

    The pts have already had their surgery and chemo and so they should all be cancer free from the way it's measured today. The goal of the drug is to prevent a recurrence of the cancer, which evidently happens about 25% of the time. It's a silly argument.
    17 Feb, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • rocketjock
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    The "healthier patients because of Herceptin" argument is nonsense. From the SN-33 study, it is only the HER2 Negative (IHC 1+/2+) patients in the booster program (n=45) that will make up the Phase PRESENT trial. Also, the HER2 IHC +3 patients that received Herceptin in the booster program were excluded from the efficacy analysis and the p value was still .035. The author discusses this in his first paragraph below the SN-33 chart. If you do not believe this look at the actual Phase 2 results to verify. I am constantly seeing this misinformation brought up and I can only gather that it is purposely ignored by those whose agenda it would not benefit to mention, or they are just plain dumb.
    19 Feb, 02:18 AM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely wrong.
    Right in the middle of this whole article is the fallacy statement that the whole article depends on. This is my point about journalists not being scientists. Adam says "Over time, DFS rates must go down, not up. A patient can't have recurrence of disease and then later NOT have recurrence of disease."

     

    Of course they can!

     

    That's called becoming healthier. If it reoccurred and then your body's immune system Eliminated the residual cancer then you would show up as the Disease free in the future.
    21 Feb, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • stockcatalystsdotcom
    , contributor
    Comments (76) | Send Message
     
    It's called "Journalists masquerading as scientists syndrome"
    21 Feb, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • The Pro
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Brice< why are you critical of Gale but give AF a pass?
    17 Feb, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    For what it's worth, I hate to hear someone compare a cancer patient prescribed Abstral, for breakthrough pain, to a drug addict. I mean I HATE IT. The comparison attempts to shame people who are going through terrible suffering. Please stop it. There is no comparison, period. Winning at all costs, and stooping so low as this, is disrespecting these patients and showing you have no regard for decency. One name in particular comes to mind, Bronte Capital, but I have seen the argument in another blog which Mr. Feuerstein provided a link to. So, I can't say I have a lot of respect for Feuerstein, but some of his other arguments appear they may have some legitimacy. The whole thing seems to be a can of worms.
    17 Feb, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    "Brice< why are you critical of Gale but give AF a pass? "

     

    Who says I'm giving him a pass? I am all over the map on GALE. If you read the date sequence of my posts, I started out totally gung ho on GALE. But reality set in. I have a lot of questions about GALE and am seeking answers from my posts.

     

    If the guy's arguments are not credible, then hopefully that will come out in the wash. My concern is GALE and the claims it makes. If there is a flaw in AF's argument in how the p value is flawed in the subset of the Phase II trial, I am all ears. But, it makes sense to me that there are factors influencing the p value in the subset, other than the effectiveness of the vaccine.

     

    I am long GALE, but not sure for how much longer.
    17 Feb, 06:12 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Bryce:
    I got the same doubts you have. Let's look the author's article the chart for n=97 this group is formed randomly, is meaningful for statistic.The people with negative view question "formed by cherry picking".No way, the restriction line drew only HR2 with +1or +2 for both vaccine group and control group that means with low HR2 in n=97 is 45 and 97-45=52 are HR2 +3, in this 45 , 18 had vaccines 27 not,there is no room for research team to have other choice,all 45 were randomly chosen originally,AF doubted 18 patients had better health condition I will ask AF how can research team to choose other low HR2 patients form subset because there is 18 only, in control group 27 ONLY. AF may argue the line was drawn AFTER the test data comes out. I can tell AF this is whatever experiment is the test data comes out randomly plot in the chart the line would drawn most possible occurrence in here is low HR2. Your 2nd question "both group health condition equal?"(I think you mean the subset) There is no question for original n=97 group it random feature, so vaccine group and control group are equal health condition(no matter "average","mean" ... those statistic terms), n=45 group formed from n=97 set within this set so the 18 group and 27 group are equal health condition.because no element comes from outside . I believe those processes should be examined by FDA and consent from FDA otherwise FAD will not grant SPA phase III trial.
    17 Feb, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Liupapa

     

    1. That "restriction line" you discuss was the cherry picking. It was RETROSPECTIVELY chosen.

     

    2. You may not be clear on what an SPA is. An SPA is basically an agreement that says "If you can prove X with study Y, and it is safe, that will be enough to submit for approval"

     

    It does NOT mean the FDA has given "consent" or "approval" of anything.

     

    An SPA does not mean the FDA "likes", "approves", "grants" or makes any judgement about a study or a drug. It only means that the design of the trial (if successful) is sufficient to demonstrate an agreed-upon set of endpoints.

     

    The granting of an SPA has nothing to do with whether or not the trial will succeed.

     

    If you are confused about SPAs, you can research them on the FDA website. fda.gov

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1m2KwoU

     

    If you read that document carefully you will see that an SPA is NOT binding on the FDA.
    17 Feb, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    Although in a sense it is correct to say that the cherry picking is through the new patient definition, the weight put behind this assessment is what I question. Because the argument that seems to be made here is that this never happens with successful programs and drugs. And that is flat out wrong.

     

    The issue is that when one runs their first phase 2 trial, it is the first time the drug has 'ran a race'. Everything up until that point is speculation. It really is no different than someone buying a horse at an auction for, say, $100,000, has trained that horse for a year, and is now ready for that horse to run his first race. But there are questions: is the race the right distance for this horse? Is it the right surface (grass vs. dirt)? Is it the right running strategy (front-runner vs. closer)? Was the training regimen correct?

     

    You don't know these things until you race the horse, and you don't know how your drug will perform in a placebo-controlled trial until you....well, put it in a placebo-controlled trial.

     

    And if you're lucky, you pick the right distance, surface and strategy, and your horse wins the race. Same thing in clinical trials. If you set up your trial correctly, including your definition of the patient for study entry, you have little noise and can proceed to phase 3 with no changes.

     

    Most of the time, however, you aren't lucky, and you need to adjust after that first race. And drug developers need to figure out how to limit the noise for phase 3.

     

    And this happens a lot. ACAD had a failed phase 2 study yet found that 20-item SAPS had too much noise in it; they went with a modified 9-item SAPS, got the FDA to agree to it, ran a phase 3, and had a successful study. VNDA noticed that a certain genetic type performed better with their schizophrenia drug. Abilify had a number of failed phase 2 studies - it's now one of the best selling drugs of all time.

     

    Tweaking your platform from phase 2 to phase 3 is exactly what drug developers are paid to do.

     

    As I mentioned above, this doesn't mean NeuVax will be successful in phase 3. It's just that you can apply the arguments against it to dozens if not hundreds of already successful clinical programs.
    17 Feb, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    Liupapa,

     

    All I know is Mr. Feuerstein states specific numbers for both groups. Where he got those numbers I don't know. And whether his argument is credible, I would need for that to be confirmed or denied by medical professionals who can properly interpret the data. I am amazed at the lack of data provided to investors, AMAZED. Maybe GALE's Neuvax will produce significant results. i don't know. I just wish the analysis was more thorough from a scientific perspective by qualified people. At this point I don't know what to make of his argument.
    17 Feb, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    I found the poster that Mr. Feuerstein referred to in his May 22, 2012 article. The numbers he cites are accurate except the 31% HER2/neu overexpression he states. It's 31.7% not 31% for the vaccine group.

     

    They also provide p values aside the numbers, which he fails to cite. For the node positive, the p value is .38. For the tumor size, the p value is .13. For the HER2/neu overexpression the p value is .50. There are many other demographic descriptors he fails to mention.

     

    The slide states: "The vaccine and control groups were well matched with the only statistically significant difference being ER-/PR- status (31.1% in VG vs 17.7% in CG, p= 0.04)

     

    So, if the p values are insignificant for the categories which Mr. Feuerstein points out as problematic, what is the significance of his argument?

     

    He is saying the VG was healthier, but the p values show the differences are statistically insignificant. So, he wants to argue the Phase II trial was statistically insignificant and therefore Neuvax doesn't work, yet he uses statistically insignificant data to argue the VG subset group was healthier than the CG. Isn't there a bit of hypocrisy here?
    17 Feb, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    And the Trastuzamab Therapy %, VG 11.1%, CG 3,8%, has a p value of .10, again statistically insignificant. (Herceptin)

     

    So, he denies the Phase II study as being able to use p values .5 or greater as having any significance, yet he uses such p values, with statistical insignificance, to make his arguments against the subset group. LOL Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight LOL

     

    I think I gotta throw that article of Mr. Feuersteins' in the trash. I find no credibility in it whatsoever, from my novice, inexperienced understanding.
    17 Feb, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • ProtoCola
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Now you're getting it !!! Admit it Bryce, Adam almost psyched you out, BUT you did him one better. You said you were just a novice, but you actually beat AF/Stedman/Gravitt at their own game. WAY TO GO!!!
    P.S.: I've seen no mention, but let me be the first to say in this forum:
    Thank you for your service to this great country!
    17 Feb, 08:40 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    I'd still like to know if the physician who wrote the article has any financial association with GALE. But what he wrote seems very credible. Gotta stick with holding GALE for now. Three physicians think it has potential and one patient prefers Abstral over other similar meds for obvious reasons.

     

    And the bears try to shame cancer sufferers and compare them with drug addicts. No decency or compassion whatsoever. (Bronte Capital, A Feuerstein, Matt Gravitt)

     

    But, hey, I could change my mind tomorrow if new data comes out on GALE or the management.
    17 Feb, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    BuyersStrikeWP :
    Do you mean data received not from the same time frame? If it so, the whole set is not statistically significant.

     

    I don't FDA Had green light to approve phase III trials I understand it is conditional grant for phase III trial.

     

    Bryce:
    Why AF 's test set number is different from author's?
    17 Feb, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    I'll repeat the post I made above, still looking for an answer:

     

    ""As to the p-value, it would be statistically significant and meaningful if (and only if) it was part of the prospective study design. The NeuVax charts presented are RETROSPECTIVE data-mining. "

     

    This is what I don't understand. Why can't you pull out, from a trial, statistically significant results from a subgroup within the overall population? "

     

    What about a retrospective analysis invalidates a statistically valid subgroup out of a larger population?
    18 Feb, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • P Man
    , contributor
    Comments (1034) | Send Message
     
    You can pull out statistically significant results from sub-groups of already concluded trials; however, this is done to shape future trials, and not conclusive evidence on it's own. Because when you data-mine, which is what this is called, you will always find something. But that doesn't mean it's true unless you specifically test for it in another trial.

     

    For example, let's say you were to look at all of the stocks you purchased in the past 5 years and divided them into the ones where you made money, and the ones where you lost money. And let's say, for example, that of all the successful ones, none of them had an 'e' in their symbol, and of all the unsuccessful ones, all of them had an 'e' in their symbol.

     

    You might conclude that having an 'e' in a stock's symbol is a bad investment. But would that be a sound conclusion?

     

    Well, that of course is absurd. But, it is at least (theoretically) possible. So you would have to specifically test for that in a new 'trial' to determine if it had any merit. Because when you looked at your previous sample set, the 'entrance criteria' to become a stock you were going to invest in had nothing to do with whether it had an 'e' in it or not. You used other criteria to purchase a stock. So, it may have been - and most likely was - dumb luck that the 'e' stocks were bad and the non-'e' stocks were good. But any reasonable person would conclude that if you truly looked at a different sample set, the 'e' issue would be, well, silly.

     

    So, when you data-mine and you find something interesting, you have to ask yourself, is there any merit to this, or was it just dumb luck? Was it just an aberrant finding? If you feel that there is some merit to it - that the evidence is so overwhelming it couldn't have been to dumb luck, and a scientific argument can be made for it - you might be onto something. But you need to specifically test for it.

     

    And I have argued on this blog that things like this do happen, all the time in clinical platforms, because you truly don't know what your drug will do until you test it. Sometimes you are way off base and need a complete re-purposing of your program (ie, Viagara), and sometimes you are just a little off base, and just need to tweak your program (ie, pimavanserin).
    18 Feb, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @ Bryce

     

    Basically, it is because the results (answers) have to be matched with the study (questions being asked at beginning of study).

     

    Studies are designed to prospectively answer a specific question. For example a study could be run to answer the question "Does drug A cure disease X?"

     

    But the results from that study are only meaningful to that particular question. Because that is what it was, prospectively, designed to answer.

     

    Now a retrospective subgroup analysis attempts to ask a different question.

     

    The question "Does drug A cure disease X in patients with Y?" is a different question. The results from the first study are not meaningful to that question.

     

    The stock pumpers and touts are suggesting that the retrospective results are meaningful. They are not. They are suggesting that NeuVax Phase 2 study was a success on efficacy. It was not.

     

    The stock pumpers suggest that the data-mined results show meaningful efficacy. They do not. The best you can do is use that retrospective information as hypothesis generating material, and design a NEW study to answer that NEW question.

     

    Now to be fair, that is what Galena is doing. But the question they are asking now:

     

    "Does a vaccine that targets a Her2 peptide prevent cancer recurrence in patients that do not strongly express Her2?"

     

    has some serious logical inconsistencies, which is why I believe that trial will also fail.
    18 Feb, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    Thank you very much for your clarification of the issues with retrospective analysis. Your example is a great textbook example for investors in pharmaceutical companies. Indeed the history of medicine discoveries is full of examples where retrospective data mining or just pure observations led to great new therapies. Unfortunately there are also examples of notable failures based on the same procedures. So it's more about how strong the other supporting data is, how substantial the science is and less about p values. My personal feeling is that NueVax certainly has an immunologic affect that delays or prevents recurrence. The evidence is just too strong for this not to be truth. The question is how significant is this effect and in what exact population. My speculation is that NueVax will eventually emerge as significant enough to be prescribed by the majority of physicians. Therefore I am (very) long on $GALE.
    20 Feb, 02:10 AM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    BuyerStrike,

     

    "The question "Does drug A cure disease X in patients with Y?" is a different question. The results from the first study are not meaningful to that question.

     

    The stock pumpers and touts are suggesting that the retrospective results are meaningful. They are not. They are suggesting that NeuVax Phase 2 study was a success on efficacy. It was not."

     

    I disagree. The P value at the 24 month marker for Phase II was 0.08. (See minute 6:10 in link) That is approaching the 0.05 statistical significance, very close. It is far more likely that the results occurred by something other than chance, than by chance with this p value. There is only an 8% probability that the results occurred by chance, a 92% probability they occurred due to something other than chance, such as efficacy of the drug.

     

    http://bit.ly/1ms0612

     

    Things are not black and white as you seem to portray them.
    20 Feb, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    "The stock pumpers suggest that the data-mined results show meaningful efficacy. They do not."

     

    Again, you want black and white, but it isn't. The sub-group data of VG and CG of node positive, low HER2 expressing, and the VG optimally dosed shows a p value of 0.04. Only 1 patient in each group had been treated with Herceptin. Yet in the VG (18 patients) zero (0) recurrences of cancer occurred at the 24 month interval versus 22.2% (6 patients out of 27) in the CG.

     

    You would dismiss this, why? Obviously something other than Herceptin is causing the VG to be much, much healthier than the CG. That is a strong indicator, though unproven, of efficacy of E75.

     

    I don't agree with your conclusion. A Phase III trial is needed. See link at 11:12 on.

     

    http://bit.ly/1ms0612
    20 Feb, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Bryce,

     

    Without beating either one of our heads into the ground, the retrospective subgroup analyses are dismissed because they are retrospective.

     

    One cannot use them to make efficacy claims.

     

    The BEST you can do with such retrospective subgroup analyses is develop hypotheses for further testing.

     

    Now this is what Galena is doing, in their Phase 3 test.

     

    But one simply cannot say that NeuVax worked based on the Phase 2 data. It clearly did not. The subgroup data is meaningless (except to generate hypotheses for furthing testing).

     

    I have really tried hard to explain this, and in a fairly good natured way. You obviously really want to believe.

     

    Leon Festinger would be proud.
    20 Feb, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    "But one simply cannot say that NeuVax worked based on the Phase 2 data. It clearly did not."

     

    I did not say that Neuvax worked based on the Phase II data. I said that there is a 92% probability that something other than chance caused the results. That could have been the E75 vaccine, we don't know. You can't conclude that Neuvax "did not" work. We don't know if it did or not. One possibility is that it did work.

     

    It's not a matter of belief. It is evaluating the objective evidence in a non-biased manner.
    20 Feb, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    I have brought out evidence which I have not seen in other articles or posts. One thing is for sure, if left up to you bears, this evidence would have never seen the light of day. Not objective at all. I have to consider all sides, not just the bears' case, and I admit you bears had me going for a while, until I saw more evidence, thanks to ProtoCola, and my own research.

     

    Whether Neuvax works or not is not clear to me, but the arguments brought up by the bears that I have seen thus far don't agree with the evidence from the Phase II trial. This is independent of the DreamTeam Group and the insiders sales.

     

    IN regards to Leon Festinger, I have no idea who that is.
    20 Feb, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    "Does a vaccine that targets a Her2 peptide prevent cancer recurrence in patients that do not strongly express Her2?"

     

    Could it be as simple as having a couple of buckets of water (vaccine) trying to put out a forest fire (strongly expressed Her2) versus putting out a campfire (Her2 not strongly expressed)? Or am I not understanding the science?
    18 Feb, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • BuyersStrikeWP
    , contributor
    Comments (99) | Send Message
     
    @Bryce

     

    The buckets of water analogy is more akin to how antibiotics work. The smaller the infection, the better they function.

     

    The NeuVax vaccine is supposed to train the immune system to go after cells that express Her2. The stronger the cell expresses Her2 the more likely it is cancer. (Both Herceptin and T-DM1 work by targeting Her2. The stronger the signal, the better they work)

     

    A good analogy might be police going on a car chase.

     

    The police (immune system) get a call (vaccine) to pull over red cars (Her2 Expressing cells).

     

    Bright red cars are "highly expressing" the color red. Pink cars are only "lightly expressing" the color red. Purple and orange cars are only "very lightly" expressing the color red. White, black, blue, silver, etc cars are "not expressing" red at all.

     

    Which cars should the police pull over? The bright red ones, since those are the most red.

     

    If they are told to pull over red cars, but only pull over pink, purple and orange ones, something is wrong. Either the message to pull over red cars is not being received, or the police have bad vision.
    18 Feb, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • ProtoCola
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    Bryce,

     

    Read this:
    http://bit.ly/1kTo6s4

     

    ......does it clarify any of your concerns or issues?
    18 Feb, 06:11 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    ProtoCola,

     

    First, thanks for you comment in regards to my military service. It is appreciated.

     

    The article you provided a link to is very technical in nature. I think the science is beyond my ability to understand. I can't make any conclusion regarding the bear argument that Buyerstrike and Feuerstein make. It's just beyond my level of understanding.
    18 Feb, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • ProtoCola
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    You're most welcome...

     

    ....if you've got 15 minutes maybe this video will shed some light:

     

    http://bit.ly/1ms0612
    18 Feb, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for that link, ProtoCola. So, let's see if I understand this........the E75 vaccine is more effective with lower expressing HER2 based on the theory that the lower expressing HER2 has developed less tolerance to an immune response vs the overexpressing or higher expressing HER2?

     

    So, in BuyerStrike's analogy, the red cars have developed an ability to cloak themselves so that their actual color is not as easily identified by the police (immune system).
    18 Feb, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Liupapa
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    The police car is on duty to catch the cars with entity "red" not just "blight red".
    19 Feb, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • cyntiques
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    For all,

     

    Check out Wall Street Cheat Sheet article dated 2/19/14 entitled "Here’s Why Galena Pharmaceuticals’ NeuVax Is the Real Deal" Excellent read and provides greater interpretative insight into NueVax phase 2 trial data, to include the low expressing HER2 subset that was shown to be statistically significant.

     

    IMHO, both articles ... the "Oncologist's Perspective" and "NeuVax Is the Real Deal" clearly corroborate each other and provide a well-versed, accurate interpretation of Phase 2 data. These independently authored articles also support findings published on the http://1.usa.gov/1hw9Fde website and many other officially recognized medical research sources. Not quite sure what all the confusion is about? Best of luck to all investors (short and long)... but I plan to hang in there.
    19 Feb, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Bafi008
    , contributor
    Comments (34) | Send Message
     
    What findings published on the http://1.usa.gov/1hw9Fde website are you referring to?
    20 Feb, 02:10 AM Reply Like
  • Bryce_in_TX
    , contributor
    Comments (2489) | Send Message
     
    BuyersStrike,

     

    FYI, because of your posting of my email address on your blog, I've had to change it so that hackers don't work at my password and eventually break it. They could have gotten my investment account info, passwords to my bank/insurance account, and credit card info as well as my ebay info.

     

    Your accusation that I am a sock puppet is false. When I went into change my email with my ISP, I noticed my first and last name are there as well, so when I entered my email on your blog, that name automatically was entered into the posting info as well, I assume. That is where my first and last name came from. But, I use the pseudonym on SA which is different. I wanted to use my pseudonym from SA, so on newer posts that's what I did. And I told you and everyone else who I was on my first post as Bryce_in_TX on your blog, so they would know the two posters were the same poster.

     

    I knew the same email address was being posted to you with each post. It's there for me to see before I post. If I had wanted to deceive you I would have used a different email address.

     

    And I have never used any name on SA other than my current one.

     

    I am done with you. Please do not respond to any future posts of mine on SA. You will not get a reply.
    22 Feb, 05:24 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

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.