SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Biotech / MedicalImmunomedics (IMMU) - moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: blessedtobehere who wrote (50206)2/8/2019 7:10:11 PM
From: stockdoc77
2 Recommendations   of 57579
 
"Ignore obvious stock manipulation, ignore obvious misleading information by analysts, ignore that we have absolutely no evidence that IMMU didn't meet FDA standards (other than the FDA said so)"

I don't see "obvious" anything. Just a set of facts that leads you to that speculative conclusion. Also, the actual fact that the FDA issued a CRL means they did not meet FDA standards. If you think those standards are inappropriate and the company should have been given a pass anyway, that's your opinion, but not a fact of any sort, and without any evidentiary basis.
In the history of the FDA, they have gotten into trouble many times for approving drugs that should not have been approved, but they have never been in trouble for not approving a drug which should have been. That is the risk benefit calculation that FDA officials make.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: jargonweary who wrote (50209)2/8/2019 7:11:43 PM
From: blessedtobehere
   of 57579
 
yes, because

#1. I didn't care that I was in the penalty box because I was pretty much done posting. Something new has come up which I will add to one of my prior posts later and was mentioned earlier today by kdd999.
"And maybe reread #49946. Of course, we banned the guy, which helps the lynch mob mentality."

#2. I'm going to do something which would have been appropriate for Idaho and LadyPI to do. I just got off treadmill and worked off my anger at powerful people playing with people's lives. While on treadmill I did admit to myself that I was a little harsh and.......I apologize.
That's all I was waiting to hear from someone who falsely accused me and another who banned me without doing any due diligence to the accusation. But I know that sometimes you never get an apology.

Anyway, as I said, I was pretty much done posting and after my next post I will not post unless I find something that is relevant. But right now, my wife is going to take me out to one of my favorite restaurants.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: idahoranch1 who wrote (50203)2/8/2019 7:14:33 PM
From: stockdoc77
2 Recommendations   of 57579
 
My source for that was an analyst report put out around the time they filed for AA which quoted those numbers. Unfortunately, I did not save it, and don't remember which firm issued that report. Perhaps my memory is confused, but I did discuss that point in real time with some other investors, so I assume was reading it correctly. Maybe I should see if I have some old calendars or a yearbook that could refresh my recollection.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: idahoranch1 who wrote (50210)2/8/2019 7:16:55 PM
From: blessedtobehere
1 Recommendation   of 57579
 
>Not entirely true, the author of a post has 15 minutes to edit or erase their post. Thin thin Ice.

Well I think it probably is true because I just posted a message, went to edit and did not see an option to remove it. I could have erased all the text, but since the only option at the bottom is to submit, I believe it would still be there. And based on the fact that is all recent knowledge to me, I know that I never did that.
But you never bothered to ask.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: blessedtobehere who wrote (50212)2/8/2019 7:20:09 PM
From: jargonweary
   of 57579
 
“right now, my wife is going to take me out to one of my favorite restaurants.”

Perhaps you should consider an order of the humble pie for dinner tonight. You are pretty full of yourself.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: stockdoc77 who wrote (50211)2/8/2019 7:30:06 PM
From: blessedtobehere
   of 57579
 
> the actual fact that the FDA issued a CRL means they did not meet FDA standards

My intent is not to get in a pissing match with you, but let's think about that. Do you think that anytime a person is not given a job, a raise, a college admission, a job as a fireman, policeman.... I could go on and on and on and told they didn't meet the standards that it is indeed true? Tell that to minorities in the past who met standards. Tell that to whites in current times due to affirmative action. Tell that to women who applied to jobs traditionally held by men. Seriously? I'm trying hard right now to think of any job, approval, etc., that does not rely on the approvers to be unbiased.

Also, I thought you previously said that the FDA gets it right 99% of the time. Maybe you missed my previous post regarding their biggest blunders. You are correct, those were approvals and as I pointed out, all but 1 was big Pharma. Maybe you can enlighten us all and tell us why the FDA is more likely to make a mistake by approving a drug for Big Pharma.

And I won't even get into the Menthol cigarette controversy right now, which the FDA has not done anything to curb, even though it hurts the black population the most. I'm pretty sure some big tobacco companies and their lobbyists were involved, but I don't have time to look up facts right now. Maybe you can do that for me.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: jargonweary who wrote (50215)2/8/2019 7:32:03 PM
From: blessedtobehere
1 Recommendation   of 57579
 
I think I just apologized, but based Idaho's previous statement re: the ban, don't you now fall into the ban category?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: blessedtobehere who wrote (50216)2/8/2019 7:34:51 PM
From: blessedtobehere
1 Recommendation   of 57579
 
Just going to add one more.
Look at LadyPI's original post to me which was not true but caused me to be banned and the posts just within the last hour to me. I believe I met the standards of conducts even though you might not agree with what I said, but you, LadyPI and jargon have not. Yet I got banned and you're still here.
See Idaho's post 50193.

Sometimes standards are not applied equally.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: jargonweary2/8/2019 7:48:05 PM
1 Recommendation   of 57579
 
For the record, I did ban myself for 2 weeks recently. I was being a bit of a jerk. I think I’ll ban myself again for a few days. This is getting all so tedious. And repetitive. And frustrating. And depressing.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: blessedtobehere who wrote (50216)2/8/2019 7:49:08 PM
From: stockdoc77
   of 57579
 
Because sometime in human history person A was unfair to person B, we can then conclude of course the FDA was unfair to IMMU as the only possible explanation for the CRL. Let me say your logic is less than overwhelming. You are engaging in conspiracy theory logic with a huge dose of motivated reasoning. I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10