Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]
    I would also think that if the DreamTeam did something without my approval which damaged the image of my company as significantly as this has, that I would be considering a lawsuit against them.
    Feb 17 03:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]
    You would think that whatever was to be marketed by DreamTeam would be first reviewed by Galena. At least, that's how it was done with the companies I worked for. Stating he didn't know that the materials being promoted by DreamTeam had no disclosure that they were paid promotions by Galena, just stinks to me. Again, any and all promotional materials paid for by the companies I worked for were reviewed by company management before they were presented to the public. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, as Dr. Phil says. Does he think I am stupid? I guess so. Hey, if Galena wants to give DreamTeam carteblanche in what they say and promote about Galena, without review and approval, just how smart is the management at Galena? Not very, IMO. Bottom line, it's just not believable.

    This does give me the willies in regards to the management. It appears as lies to me, and not very good ones at that.

    Long GALE, but not sure for how long.
    Feb 17 02:25 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • GALE: The Oncologist's Perspective On A Life Saving Therapy [View instapost]

    "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.
    Feb 17 02:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    I think Galena was totally credible on this lawsuit. Look at the link. Most of what Propthink did was provably false. I can't believe someone would be so stupid as to make charges that could be easily proven false.

    Example: Look at paragraph 24. Propthink makes the charge that Schwartz and Hillsberg sold a large amount of Galena shares. That is false, and anyone can research the Form 4s to see it is false. And paragraph 28 states that Propthink admitted they were false.

    Read the charges Galena made against Propthink. In many cases Propthink admitted they were wrong. I think Galena looks good on this one.
    Feb 17 01:44 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    Ahn has categorically denied that he was aware that the SA articles were the product of DreamTeam.

    "Ahn, Galena's CEO, said the company did not intend to mislead investors. He did not know the DreamTeam Group was not disclosing that its promotional materials were funded by Galena. In fact, he said he'd been told DreamTeam didn't write the Seeking Alpha articles. It was "an independent writer," he said."

    Not very believable, IMO, but there it is.
    Feb 17 01:32 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    That is certainly an argument one can make. Whether true or not, I don't know how you make that determination, but it is certainly something we all should consider as potentially true.
    Feb 17 01:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • GALE: The Oncologist's Perspective On A Life Saving Therapy [View instapost]
    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.
    Feb 17 01:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • GALE: The Oncologist's Perspective On A Life Saving Therapy [View instapost]
    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?

    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.
    Feb 17 12:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]
    Not sure, but Enron might be one, also MCI Worldcom, possibly.

    "Today, we focus on the private analysts whose warnings
    could have, and many say should have, alerted investors to the
    fiscal fissures in Enron's foundation before everything
    crumbled, but who instead continued to urge investors to buy
    Enron stock even after the company began to crumble."

    "Despite their independence and the variance in their techniques, nearly every sell-side analyst reached the same conclusions about Enron in 2001, right up to the brink of its bankruptcy on Dec. 2. As of Oct. 18, all 15 analysts tracked by Thomson Financial/First Call rated Enron a “buy”–12 of the 15 called it a “strong buy.” Even as late as Nov. 8, the date of Enron’s disclosure that nearly five years of earnings would have to be recalculated, 11 of the 15 recommended buying the stock. (There were three “holds” and one “strong sell.”) "

    I am in no way equating GALE with Enron. Just trying to answer your question.
    Feb 17 12:03 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]
    Here are some analysts ratings. All very favorable.
    Feb 15 11:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    I fail to see what harm exists in pro articles written about the science behind Neuvax, Abstral, and Galena's other products. On the contrary, I wasn't aware of much of the science nor what medical professionals thought about it until yesterday. And I wish you would address Bronte Capital's piece of trash instead of being one sided on the issue.

    To me, this article, Mr. Gravitt's article, and Bronte Capital's article on the science and purpose of the drugs pales in comparison to what an oncologist has presented, supported by three MDs positive opinions as well.

    Fair is fair. There may well be a problem with the stock sales and with DreamTeam's unethical practices. GALE may be guilty on both counts. But, they aren't selling snake oil.

    But the bear side is not without sin either. I'd love to see you guys address that as well. Bronte's article, as I said before, is condemnable, IMO.
    Feb 15 07:26 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    Thanks for your comments. I'd rather see a lot more input by medical professionals on the merits or demerits of the science behind GALE's products and a lot less from financial people who make uneducated opinions about the science. Bronte Capital's post on GALE is the worst piece of trash I have seen thus far. It is reprehensible.

    This is a speculative stock. Phase II results are no guarantee that Phase III will turn out similarly. I am no expert. I assimilate information and make a judgement call, like everyone else. This is my first venture into the speculative Bio-pharma space. I am told that most ventures in this space fail. Aware of the risks, I am long GALE.
    Feb 15 04:59 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    I don't know the stock is going to drop anymore. With the scientific merit of the drugs themselves, as confirmed by medical professionals, on what reasonable basis should it drop more?

    I don't know the motivations for the stock sales, but dumping the stock based on belief the company and its products are not viable is not one of them, IMO, based on (1) the testimony of medical professionals and (2) patients taking Abstral.

    The Phase III trial may not be successful, that is a risk I have to take. But, at this stage it appears the medical community believes the Phase II trial resulted in significant positive results to warrant a Phase III trial. Plus, I have seen several folks on here, one a cancer patient taking Abstral, and MDs, praising Abstral. Who should I listen to, non-tech financial guys that understand nothing about the scientific merits of the drugs (Bronte "clueless" Capital comes to mind), or patients, plus medical professionals who know and understand the science?

    Add in that about 20% of GALE stock is held by institutions, and there are a number of reputable investment firms rating GALE as a buy or hold.

    I can't rush to judgment based on the little information I have obtained about the insider sales. Most of the sales have been replenished with new stock options. And most of the stock sales were stock options received as compensation. Were you aware of those facts? If not I can show you each individuals holdings before and after the recent sales. Most still hold a very significant stake in GALE.

    Hopefully, the more the medical professionals' opinions and blogs are disseminated on SA and other sites, the less volatility we will see in the stock, but I'm not holding my breath.

    One thing is for sure. I have little invested in GALE. I view it as a speculative play amounting to only 2% of my portfolio. For anyone who is not well diversified and has placed a huge percentage of their investment holdings into GALE, I would advise seeking to sell some of GALE and become better diversified. Long GALE.
    Feb 15 03:58 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]
    "What do the insiders know that we don't that prompted them to sell? I don't care but their lack of confidence is mine as well."

    That would be one reason for the widespread insider selling of late, but not the only one. Based on the blog below, I don't think it's a lack of confidence in the company.

    It is possible that the upcoming quarter's results are not going to be that favorable and they sold prior to the release of that information. However, that is a dead giveaway for prohibited/illegal insider selling. Surely they aren't that stupid.

    "Is there a problem that makes the insiders think that NeuVax will not be successful or pass phase 3 trials? This would be my guess."

    I don't see it. I see financial, non-medical folks, a few, shorting the stock and publishing negative articles on GALE, AND PROFITING FROM IT. WHY DON'T YOU SEE THAT AS BAD AS WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THE INSIDER SALES? But, they have insufficient or no scientific background from which to interpret drug trial results. That is what matters, the scientific merit of the drug.

    I have yet to see a creditable medical source go negative on Neuvax and Abstral, just the opposite.

    Nothing you have listed as problematic pertains to the scientific merit of Neuvax or Abstral, nothing. GALE denies knowing of the unethical SA articles which Feuenstein revealed in his latest hit piece on GALE. Ahn states the reason for the sales of his 800,000 shares was for diversification purposes and states it is less than 20% of his investment holdings.

    We certainly could be being duped by Ahn. The large sales of securities in the last 60 days is concerning. I don't deny that. However, having some knowledge of the scientific merit of Neuvax and Abstral, which is positive and significant as stated by several MDs, one being an oncologist, the stock sales for me take on a less dark, sinister perspective. I am long GALE.

    Both quotes below are from MDs, and can be found in the link I provided above.

    "User 17799072 Comment (1)

    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. "

    "jpcmd91 Comments (2)

    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 "
    Feb 15 03:23 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Deeper Look At The Galena Biopharma Controversy [View article]

    " I will say this, if the stock drops significantly and you want to stay with it, it seems better to sell at the low price and buy it back at that price, rather than dollar cost average."

    Be aware of the wash sale rule. If you sell at a loss, then buy the stock back within 30 days, the loss can not be deducted. It's as if the sale never took place, you still have your old or original basis in the stock.

    "Wash Sales

    You cannot deduct losses from sales or trades of stock or securities in a wash sale.

    A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you:

    Buy substantially identical stock or securities,

    Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade,

    Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or

    Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA.

    If your loss was disallowed because of the wash sale rules, add the disallowed loss to the cost of the new stock or securities (except in (4) above). The result is your basis in the new stock or securities. This adjustment postpones the loss deduction until the disposition of the new stock or securities. Your holding period for the new stock or securities includes the holding period of the stock or securities sold.

    For more information, see Wash Sales, in chapter 4 of Publication 550."
    Feb 15 01:44 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment