Seeking Alpha

ssifen

ssifen
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View ssifen's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Time Is Now For Northwest Biotherapeutics [View article]
    "I don't completely dislike ICT-107, I'm just of the opinion that DCVax-L will show much greater effectiveness"

    Greater effectiveness in the total population. With IMUC's smaller subset and now new trials required, they are pretty far behind if NWBO is as good as we are predicting. My two cents.
    Oct 31, 2014. 08:35 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics Misrepresents Clinical Trial Data [View article]
    So I think the point is that going back to 2006 isn't relevant, certainly not with regard to estimating an enrollment curve. The number for the first five years is known at 33, and the circumstances for recruiting since that time are entirely different (number of sites, PIII vs PII, press, etc). The key dates are 1/2011 (trial restart), 12/2013 (67 events known) and now.

    If it's fair to assume that they were at pretty close to 30 events when they resumed the trial in 2011, I am just struggling to see how it takes 2 years to get +/- 40 additional events, and still haven't gotten 81 more events since December if the drug has no efficacy beyond SOC (other than your point discussed earlier).
    Oct 15, 2014. 02:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics Misrepresents Clinical Trial Data [View article]
    I agree with you there. However, that wouldn't put them on a pace to complete enrollment in 14Q4 or 15Q1. I'm not blindly in this with all of my retirement at stake. I understand this, or any clinical stage biotech, is highly speculative. However, to be in it at all, I have to be under the assumption that management isn't completely fraudulent. My assumption must be that management wouldn't be so brazenly fraudulent so as to say that they can enroll 312 (or 348) patients in 3 years if they know they are only enrolling 24/year.

    I get that there are those that have a different view of management. However, my comments were based on that assumption which should absolutely be fundamental to anyone that chooses to have any position in this company.

    The above statements are based on 2012-13 enrollment only, and discounting those that were enrolled prior to 2011 who are part of the 67 events announced 11 months ago. It seems surprising to me that it took until December 2013 to get to 67 (or said differently, how many of those early enrollees are NOT part of the 67), AND it seems surprising to me that it's taken so long to achieve 81 additional since December 2013. Your point would certainly explain the latter, but again, makes a clear assumption about the validity of data coming from management about when enrollment will complete.
    Oct 13, 2014. 08:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics Misrepresents Clinical Trial Data [View article]
    The reality is that there are two 10 year survivors, which you have not refuted, and seem to have glossed over as remarkable from such a small sample.

    The reality is that we were at 67 events in the PIII last December, and are not yet at 148 events 10 months later (when the real actual, and NOT oft misrepresented and manipulated DMC safety/efficacy analysis will occur). Sure sounds like people are living a lot longer than would be expected under normal circumstances, but I guess that point doesn't fit the bear thesis, so we should go and constantly misrepresent things that didn't happen in Q1.
    Oct 1, 2014. 06:13 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Promotion Of Northwest Bio [View article]
    @adamfeuerstein: I know this is way off topic, but curious as to your opinion on the PFS vs OS question. 2+ years PFS is longer than OS for SOC. If PFS in the treatment arm of the Phase III "L" trial turns out to be longer than OS in the placebo arm, do you believe FDA would consider PFS data to be persuasive enough for approval? What about outcomes for patients that cross over (the recently lost reason for why OS is not a realistic primary outcome)? We keep talking about status of first DMC review, but aren't we getting to the point where it is more interesting that we haven't yet triggered the second?

    @adamfeuerstein: Not a big fan of your writing style and use of outrageous headlines, but classy move in the comments section.

    @Larry: Pearson has really drawn some serious conclusions based on circumstantial evidence. Interesting that this is a major criticism he has of of you! When AF is backing you and calling the criticisms "off topic and out of line," I think we can glean great insight into the value of Pearson's contributions.
    Jul 8, 2014. 11:06 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics: An Analysis Of Its Transforming Balance Sheet Restructuring [View article]
    More hypocritical nonsense. Your theme of hatred for NWBO management is based at least in part on the fact that they've compared single arm trial results to historical mean. Leaving aside for a moment that this is common practice in early stage trials, how can you possibly claim that NWBO will fail because IMUC failed when your position is that you can't compare data across trials, or even to SOC? Now you're saying that there is some gold standard of analysis comparing data across companies with different technologies!!! Pathetic.
    Dec 17, 2013. 10:19 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics: An Analysis Of Its Transforming Balance Sheet Restructuring [View article]
    DNDN?
    Dec 17, 2013. 10:15 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics: An Analysis Of Its Transforming Balance Sheet Restructuring [View article]
    Adam, you're the one that went on record as pro-IMUC and anti-NWBO. Who's spinning here? You seem to have quite seemlessly forgotten your bullish call on IMUC now that the results are in.

    If it's OK to be bullish on IMUC and bearish on NWBO, why is it now ridiculous to be bullish on NWBO even if IMUC failed to meet its primary endpoint?

    Hypocrite maybe?
    Dec 17, 2013. 10:12 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics: An Analysis Of Its Transforming Balance Sheet Restructuring [View article]
    For someone that provides so little substantive input to the debate, you sure seem to spend a great deal of time following someone you believe does such poor research. Why bother? If you're so convinced Larry's input creates no value, why not ignore it and move on to more credible sources and stocks? If you aren't in the pockets of the shorts, why are you wasting your time commenting on reports of "retail-owned penny stocks"

    What am I missing?
    Dec 10, 2013. 06:23 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Amarin CEO Makes Significant Withdrawals From Shareholder Value Account [View article]
    johnle02, why do you want to continue to overpay him with such a ridiculous suggestion? $1???? What's he done to earn that!!!
    Nov 13, 2013. 08:04 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Amarin Could Still Turn Profitable [View article]
    The anti-FDA comments seem very fair to me. The result of the Ad Comm to me seems to suggest that the panel believes (and likely the FDA ultimately) hypertriglyceridemia and potentially even hypercholesterolemia are not actually legitimate diagnoses. If there is no correlation between LDL/TG and CVD, eat all the trans fats you want without treatment!

    Does anyone actually support this theory outside of the world of approving drugs to prevent disease? Do we expect medical journals to suggest that we stop treating these conditions until an outcomes study verifies their applicability? I'd venture to say that it would be difficult to convince real world practicing physicians that their patients should strive to reduce LDL/TG specifically because they reduce the chance of CVD.
    Oct 24, 2013. 10:35 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Amarin Could Still Turn Profitable [View article]
    That's very well reasoned if you believe that LDL and Triglycerides are the same thing. Assuming those are two different things, there is no rationale for saying that a drug that treats elevated TG's is a swap for a drug that treats elevated LDL.

    The purpose of REDUCE-IT is to establish a correlation between TG level and CVD. An insurance company can buy a whole lot of Vascepa for every CV event avoided. The entire business model of healthcare is shifting to prevention instead of treating. If there is a proven correlation between reduced LDL/TG's and CV events, I disagree that it will be difficult to get treatments for both covered.
    Oct 24, 2013. 08:59 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • IntelliPharmaCeutics - Primed For An Easy Double [View article]
    It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but if there were a correlation, wouldn't it be to accelerate approval for generics? Greater generic availability would be beneficial to Obama Care.

    I'd be more concerned if they were accelerating approval without increasing oversight; that would be more likely to imply some sort of consipiracy within departments of the HHS.

    We can be against Obama Care for plenty of reasons, but this seems a bit of a stretch.
    Aug 22, 2013. 10:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Membership Has Its Privileges: The Upside Of Joining The Indexes [View article]
    Doc, I think you are sarcastically agreeing with the premise of my statement, and that we are talking about an opportunity much larger than inoperable cancer.

    That said, you are correct that I was referring to announcements back to early Spring. You make a very good point that the study has not been actively treating patients until last month.
    Jul 2, 2013. 12:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Northwest Biotherapeutics: Moving DC Vax-L Rapidly Forward And Starting DC Vax Direct Trials [View article]
    Larry,

    ZZ here is absolutely correct. All of your reporting about the facts concerning this company and what it is trying to accomplish are worthless and borderline fraudulent because the stock price has gone down in the short term.

    Give us a break! This is a clinical stage biotech. The science is going to work or it's not. If it does, the price will be much higher than it is today. If it doesn't, the stock will go down another 90%. Those of us that think it will be the former should see your point as a great buying opportunity (I personally appreciate the warrants at $1.50 earlier this week).

    This notion that stocks are never mispriced or that the market will always correctly predict the outcome of every clinical trial is absurd. Larry has many times documented his strategy of abnormal risk/reward profiles. To achieve that, you've got to get in before the data is announced. He's never made a claim to being able to call bottoms with perfection.
    Jun 30, 2013. 10:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
64 Comments
89 Likes