Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View justhinkin's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 4 Undervalued Picks For $10 Or Less [View article]

    Note to author:

    in your "about" section, this part is missing the word "to":

    " the potential [to] invent new industries"

    Also, the word "then" in your "about" section should be "than".
    Oct 21, 2013. 06:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    "You don't need to petition anything if you're selling a dietary supplement. Which is what STSI is selling and will be selling."

    I misused the term "petition", my apologies, as prior approval of claims is not necessary. However, any claim for a supplement to treat or cure illness/disease requires strictly controlled substantiation, as shown by the following link

    Supplement "treatment" (out and out) claims are rare because few supplement makers can make any, but "treatment" claims are highly coveted for them, for obvious reasons. That is and will be a big difference to distinguish Star's Anatabloc from nearly all other "supplements".

    The whole basis for the FDA standoff with the supplement industry is that if ANY claim to treat disease is to be made such claim must be substantiated under strict guidelines provided by FDA. THAT in turn is what is in the process of happening for Star's Anatabloc. THAT is the purpose the clinical trials will serve. Where in your article did you address these matters as part of the future for the product you so summarily condemned? In fact, where did you even mention them at all? Or the scientists wholeheartedly behind them and the product? And so on.

    Again, you cannot resurrect your faulty article by picking and choosing to which comment to reply. Too, I do not have time here to relate all that you should have discovered about Star and its products before you wrote your article. If it were easy to do, then I am sure you could have done it in the first place.

    Look, anyone can write a hit piece on anyone or anything by ignoring chosen, or all in your case, facts on one side of an issue and promoting those on the other. I am sure "twain" could write a favorable comparison between a tricycle and a Lexus, or Satan and God. You and all of your short-minded friends are fairly good at this ... until someone points out what you don't know, what are hiding, or what you are misrepresenting. It happens every day.

    You misrepresented the case to do with Star and its products (purposely or in ignorance), concentrated on current financials as if there is no possibility for change at all, much less in the near future, and, from that state of false premise, your article, especially its conclusions, is meaningless. Unfortunately, I do not have time to try to get you to learn, and admit to, what you should have known and stated in the first place, piece meal, here, in the comment section. That is supposed to happen before you publish.

    Finally, I am not trying to make a case for investment. Honestly, the matter of Star Scientific is so complex at this point, at this very moment, that DD prior to investment would be very difficult to do prior to events upcoming. The publications of the clinical trials will clarify the picture greatly, but of course if we are talking about favorable outcomes then the entry point will likely be considerably higher. As to shorting it ... by all means, help yourselves!
    Oct 14, 2013. 10:28 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    As I pointed out in another comment, "Phase III" trials have no meaning regarding supplements You (as you do or should know) are talking about a drug development path.

    Every time you (and others ... we hear this all day every day on discussion boards) talk about stagnating sales you are throwing away the facts.

    First, Star's business plan is much more than to simply put this product on the market and hope it sells (that's your implication). You are ignoring (by ignorance or deliberately) the scientific backing, the successful pre-clinical trials, the now complete (awaiting publication/review) clinical trials, many more to come, etc.

    You cannot deny that. You did not mention them in your article, and you misrepresented or simply got wrong the non-financial "facts" you did cite there, and you cannot deny that, nor can you dispense with those omissions in a few lines in comments. Your article's whole premise is bogus (that you did research and understood the company and its products), and any conclusions drawn are bogus therefore.

    You cannot with any integrity say sales are stagnating and therefore there is no future for the company when you discount, or are ignorant of, the entire factual basis for the products and the company's business plan.

    The first step in the plan was to do something amazing: To do pre-clinical studies that then led to the effort to simultaneously avail a brand new kind of anti-inflammatory (unlike "twain's" assertion, this is NOT like any other anti-inflammatory) to the public as a supplement while conducting efficacy trials to eventually allow FDA approval for specific health claims for it.

    Step 2 is underway: the company is on the cusp of publication of several clinical trials ... for overall efficacy in reducing excess inflammatory response as measured by the hsC-RP test, as well as other clinical indications; to demonstrate the ability, A FIRST, to ameliorate autoimmune thyroidits; and to demonstrate what will be the first highly effective OTC treatment for rosacea. Other trials in progress include the possibility of showing some efficacy in ameliorating Alzheimer's, research enthusiastically undertaken by famous Alzheimer's researchers Drs. Mullan and Crawford.

    There are preliminary results available that show that a highly favorable outcome in the "overall inflammation" test is virtually assured (from an interim look at the study as well as a less formal earlier clinical trial).

    Step 3 will be to use successful outcomes from clinical trials to petition the FDA to allow Star to make efficacy claims for the products for such specific purposes. Efficacy, and claims for such, in just ONE of these diseases (overall inflammation, thyroiditis, or rosacea) would open up marketing it specifically to from 3 to 30 million persons each (NIH figures vary widely), and that will easily insure the success of the company to the satisfaction of current stockholders.

    If efficacy to any degree is shown in ameliorating Alzheimer's, well, after 10 years of big drug failures in that pursuit then it's "to the moon", but most of us are not banking on that.

    Step 4, the company has indicated (I'm doing the numbering, from observation of past events and judging heading from their publications) would be developing the isolated S-(-) isomer of anatabine as a drug, with likely a very abbreviated need for the usual drug trials due to known safety and degrees of efficacy from the supplement (which contains both isomers of anatabine).

    You ignored all of that (and more), and that invalidates the conclusions you allege in your article. You cannot remedy your situation with sniping replies to hand-picked comments because the scope of what you ignored/left out/don't know is much too big to represent here.
    Oct 14, 2013. 09:31 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    "anything below Phase II/III is highly dubious and doesn't prove anything."

    Doesn't prove "anything"? REALLY? My comment was in reply to "twain", and it certainly disproves his assertion:

    "Why? Neither product has had anything scientifically proven. "

    doesn't it.

    It proves that twain's comparison of Star's products to some silicone bracelet is completely bogus, doesn't it.

    "Phase III" studies have no meaning in connection with proving efficacy for dietary supplements. Double blind clinical trials, peer reviewed, will be sufficient to petition FDA to allow claims of efficacy to be made for the supplement.

    OK, so why are you avoiding commenting on my first, lengthy reply to your article in which I challenge you to disprove that your whole premise for the article is wrong: that you made a reasonable assessment of the facts behind Star, its history, its products and their future and found nothing there to bolster any view of the future for the company but "bankruptcy". As I showed, you do not know "the facts" about even the most basic information regarding Star and its history and products. Do you agree with my assessment? If not, please explain how you could be so fundamentally wrong about your factual allegations about those matters otherwise.
    Oct 14, 2013. 07:54 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    My reply was meant to attach to a different comment you made. How about a reply to my other comments, about your ignorance of facts to do with the history and prospects for Star and its products ... or your desire to hide same?
    Oct 14, 2013. 07:40 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    "Why? Neither product has had anything scientifically proven. "

    Either you are lying or you don't know enough to be talking about it. Are you hiding your knowledge about the highly successful peer reviewed pre-clinical studies (not to mention the success reported in an interim look at one of the several clinical trials about to be published), or are you that ill informed?

    Are you hiding your knowledge of the several truly famous scientists who are totally behind the anatabine developments (Mullan, Crawford, Ladenson, etc.)? What about the developer of the products in Star's Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Curtis Wright, former FDA research department head and administrator? Ever hear of any of this? Ever hear of anything parallel for your bracelet comparison?

    How many pre-clinical trials were run on your bracelet comparison? How many were hugely successful (all of those on anatabine were)? How many clinical trials on it were or are being done and are nearing publication? Etc.?

    All of those of you who have written articles such as Santos' can be classed into two categories: (1) ignorant of facts; or (2) anxious to hide information. The appearance is that it is usually a combination. The question is "which" for each particular one, but in truth one is as bad, and as condemning, as the other.

    Which, by the way, are you? Oh, and what are your scientific qualifications (to be asserting (falsely) that "nothing has been scientifically proven)?
    Oct 14, 2013. 06:44 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    You can find out things like that by reading quarterly reports, if you really care.
    Oct 14, 2013. 06:23 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    That reply assumes that there is NOTHING in development that could change your "appraisal", and that assumption can only be based in ignorance of what is going on with Star and the products (how the anti-inflammatory effect of anatabine was discovered, why the product was introduced as a dietary supplement, what about the clinical trials, etc), or a deliberate misrepresentation of what you do know. Which is it?
    Oct 14, 2013. 06:19 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific: Cash Strapped And Under The Influence Of Death-Spiral Financing [View article]
    "I have read a lot about anatabine"

    Really? REALLY? Then perhaps you will be kind enough to give a few details about your claim that:

    "This product and associated patents were the basis for a supposedly giant patent-infringement lawsuit against RJ Reynolds"

    I would love to see you try, because your statement is patently : ) false. Neither of the products you mentioned, CigRx or Anatabloc, have or had anything to do with the infringement lawsuit against RJR, nor did the patents associated with "these" products have such a connection.

    The patents in the RJR suit had to do with methods of curing tobacco, not synthesizing anatabine nor producing products therefrom. Anyone ... ANYONE ... who knows just the very basics about the company (Star), its history, the tobacco curing patents and the RJR matter, and the COMPLETELY SEPARATE development of the anatabine products knows your statement above is false.

    So you say you "... read a lot about anatabine ...". Five minutes? Ten? Your sources? Feuerstein? Marty the short?

    Here's your problem. The premise of your "article" is that you looked at the technical matters to do with the situation, being the prospects for the company based on its new and only business model, pharmaceuticals, and you found that lacking. Having "accomplished" that, you move right on to financials.

    Now, unless you can (and you can't) come up with evidence that you are right about the RJR patent infringement suit having to do with "this product and associated patents", then I have proved that that premise of your article, your premise, is false. You don't even know the basics of the company, its history, or its products.

    Do you know enough about logic (false premise in an "argument" yields meaningless results) to know that that means that your reasoning in the article is meaningless, as are its conclusions?

    Do you know about the pending results of the several clinical trials awaiting publication? Oh, that's right ... you didn't even mention clinical trials, did you? Lets see ... was that because you didn't know about them (further proving my point, though not needed), or because you are being dishonest in your appraisal (adding yet another dimension of non-credibility).

    I, and I am sure others who know the first and second thing about this matter could go on, but frankly we're already done here.

    Mr. Meridith was spot on. Your piece is a spot on the cloak of "journalism".
    Oct 14, 2013. 06:03 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Breaking News For Star Scientific: Anatabine Is Effective In Models Of Inflammatory Bowel Disease  [View instapost]
    Thank you for this well written and thought out work.
    Apr 5, 2013. 05:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • STAR SCIENTIFIC (STSI) > Anatabine 101 & The Trend Is Your Friend. [View instapost]
    You just love to talk (on and on, all over the place) about things you know nothing about, don't you?

    Having told your knowledge-less tale of Anatabloc to some doctor (so you say) over dinner, there is little doubt he could not come to any fact based conclusion.

    Tell me ... was he laughing at the research by the head of endocrinology at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Ladenson? By Mullan and Crawford at Roskamp Institute? The peer reviewed studies by these folks in mouse models for thyroiditis, Alzheimer's, and M.S.? The Flint MI clinical trials on lowering C-RP in progress? The clinical trials on halting or reducing Hashimoto's thyroiditis by Ladenson in progress? The clinical trials by Mullan for efficacy in mild to moderate Alzheimer's in progress?

    Please ... explain at length just what did he find so funny about these things?

    What ... you forgot to mention them to him (but of course you DO know about them, right?). Now, how or rather why would you forget such things?

    Please go to these same great lengths, say 9 months from now, all over the place, to explain how you could have missed so very much important information about something you seem to have such a keen, yet factually void, interest in. AND ... WHY.

    The one thing that Anatabloc doesn't do for me: vacuous people like you STILL MAKE ME SICK.
    Sep 4, 2012. 02:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific Is On A Run: Who's Buying And Who's Selling? [View article]
    If I may say, you have a wrong impression about Anatabloc being "a vitamin", it would appear (unless you are using the term as a substitute for "dietary supplement", in which case the following is to inform others).

    The fact that Anatabloc is a "supplement" does NOT mean it is a "vitamin" (or mineral, or anti-oxidant [like "resveratrol"], or the like). I believe it could some day be called a vitamin (that is, vital to healthy living) but that's for later.

    Anatabloc/anatabine works ... lowers inflammation ... not because of some "vitamin-like" action, indirectly, in the body. Instead, it is a new kind of highly targeted anti-inflammatory, AND it is a new kind of safe MAO inhibitor. Yes, BOTH.

    Why this substance, which most laypersons would think of as a "drug", can be sold as a dietary supplement is beyond the scope of a "comment", but in part it is due to its KNOWN long history of safe use in humans, and the fact that it is contained in dietary substances (egg plant, peppers, etc.) in small amounts.

    Nicely, each of those (2) functions work hand in hand in some cases, even giving the substance antidepressant properties due to the MAOI property. MAO inhibitors work to help "tremor" brain disease such as Parkinson's, and though using MAOIs alone to treat Alzheimer's has fallen out of favor, the possibility exists that MAOI combined with a highly effective anti-inflammatory ... Anatabloc ... might really offer some hope of help for the disease (clinical trials are underway).

    (It is my belief that Roskamp Institute already knows that it has some minimal effectiveness in human use for Alzheimer's, something yet to be backed up by the appropriate ongoing clinical trial results. They have a "stable of Alzheimer's patients" of their own, and Anatabloc is already marketed as a "supplement". It would seem nothing formal would have precluded them allowing willing Alzheimer's patients to take it to assess, "anecdotally", possible efficacy. I don't know that as fact ... it's just my belief, all things considered. If I am right, when it is announced that for the first time in 10 years there is a new aid to those who have Alzheimer's ... well, WOW.)

    If you read what the short interests have so eagerly injected (in "comments") into the conversations started by this article (Nuke John) and Gefvert's last week (6/12, SA) ... things like "anatabine is just like nicotine" ... you can begin to appreciate that what they don't know about this very complex situation can hurt them ... and VERY likely will.

    What they do not know is that this substance anatabine, an MAOI, has turned out to be something much bigger ... something not even guessed at. It is a direct regulator of a major inflammatory system in the mammalian makeup.

    How important is that? If shorts had done their research, they would find numerous scientific papers discussing the role of NF-kB in almost every major and dread disease (and injury too, for instance probably serious burns). Many of those scientific papers conclude with an "if only we could regulate NF-kB directly" lament.

    ANATABLOC ENDS THAT LAMENT, and it helps in many less serious problems too ... from aches and pains due to inflammation from exercise or work, right down to (from much anecdotal reporting and personal experience) vastly reducing the severity and length of "cold sore" (herpes) breakouts.

    By the way, that is YET ANOTHER yet-to-be-discussed broad application: helping millions with herpes infections. Search "herpes NF-kB".

    It just goes on and on. I cannot imagine my dismay were I to get "killed" shorting this stock, and then realize how much I did NOT know about what's going on. It's all there for the reading, and it's all only a matter of time.
    Jul 14, 2012. 09:34 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Supreme Court's Upcoming Decision Could Push Star Scientific Higher [View article]
    You owners of that stock, OTC:BB, need some place to talk besides CIGX discussions, because (again) C'dex is NOT an anti-inflammatory ... or a safe MAOI (Anatabloc is both) ... but just another "anti-oxidant". Star has no need for such. C'dex has been around about as long as Star has been a company, and C'dex has gone no where ... and it appears to be an MLM.
    Jul 14, 2012. 06:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Supreme Court's Upcoming Decision Could Push Star Scientific Higher [View article]
    Nicotine is an INDIRECT anti-inflammatory at best, WITH side effects (ADDICTION being one important one!), and is NOT an MAOI, much less a SAFE, self-limiting MAOI. Nicotine has widely known side effects in many, including nausea. It has significant to profound and varied psychopharmacological effects (stimulant, depressive, etc.), and IS ADDICTIVE (tolerance, withdrawal, etc.)

    Anatabine citrate (as found in the supplements Anatabloc and CigRx) directly affects (only, apparently) the ubiquitous, highly significant NF-kB inflammatory pathway, thus having few or no side effects in virtually all who use it, and none that are of serious, lasting consequence. It is also a new kind of (self-limiting, thus safe) MAO inhibitor. It has a long history of safe use by hundreds of millions in a form that mostly hid its amazing anti-inflammatory effect (thus its discovery only now).

    As an MAOI it may have beneficial psychopharmacological effect as an antidepressant (anecdotal reports widespread). The MAOI property (in addition to the newly discovered anti-inflammatory property) likely also has benefit in certain colon (and other) disorders, thus acting in synergy with anatabine's anti-inflammatory effect, there, to strongly boost colon health in those who need it.

    Conservatively, 0.1% of those who have tried anatabine supplementation (overestimating actual numbers reported by an order of magnitude) reported not wishing to continue use because of undesirable effect. Thus virtually everyone who takes it reports satisfactory results (I conservatively estimate 90% from widely reported anecdotal evidence), and those who do not report "no effect" ... a remarkable state of affairs for a new medical product.

    This is NOT, you apparently do not understand, "about biotech". It is about a singularly amazing accidental discovery of a new class of "drug": one that is an anti-inflammatory, that is virtually free of side effects, that can be taken by almost everyone, and the safety of which is so well ALREADY established that it can be sold as a "supplement".
    Jul 9, 2012. 02:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Star Scientific Is On A Run: Who's Buying And Who's Selling? [View article]
    Your problem (as well as that of your friends and your "leader") is that you do not know a lot about this matter.

    In the anatabine patents, Star also will claim use of the S-(-) isomer of anatabine, isolated, for use as a drug (because it is isolated, I presume, not the natural mix of isomers found in nature).

    Roskamp I. said they determined that it is more effective alone than the (natural) mixture. It was stated last year in a press release that Star anticipated auctioning the rights to its use off to a pharmaceutical concern when trials proving its use are complete.

    Some of those trials are ongoing now. The Thyroiditis study (which Johns Hopkins' Ladenson ,et. al., believe is ONLY helped by anatabine), underway now, is said to use a compound designated RCP-007. The Anatabloc compound is RCP-006. Thus I have reason to believe that the thyroid studies may be using the isolated isomer S-(-).

    Whether or no, when they complete studies on the isomer in the future, they anticipate its use as a drug. It may be a blockbuster. For example, the inflammatory pathway that anatabine modulates, NF-kB, is heavily involved in things like sepsis, a deadly (40%) sudden body-whole breakout of inflammation. IV administration of this compound may hugely affect those outcomes. Too, most of the serious auto-immune diseases are also strongly related to NF-kB, like RA, MS, etc. These major diseases, already showing anecdotal response to Anatabloc, may be ideal candidates for treatment with the more effective S-(-) isomer ... DRUG.

    What bothers me is that you post endlessly with a bluster of authority but no facts to back it up, and you and your kin are encouraging, apparently, a legion of investors to go short this company without knowing what you're doing.

    IF it were all so simple as you keep trying to make it out to be, then truly the stock would NOT be at $4.65 as I write. Those of us who KNOW what's going on in the background are WHY that is true.

    It is my hope that by spending some time here I may clue a few of you in. I'd recommend that you all move on to something simple enough for you and "your leader" (Marty) to grasp ... simplicities like the false thesis that "nicotine = anatabine" ... or else do some actual research and find out what is REALLY going on, and THEN discuss, short, or whatever. Without that you are just plain annoying, NOT "informative".
    Jun 26, 2012. 03:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment