2015: Year of the Professional Short Seller
"Mako Takes the Hatchet to Cellceutix
Mako also launched a maligned attack on Cellceutix (CTIX) , employing a similar eye-catching title, “Cellceutix: Empty Office, Unviable ‘Science’, Misleading Disclosures, 96% Downside.” In typical fashion, the theme and format were nearly identical to the Ocata pieces, again showing pictures of the outside of the doors at Cellceutix’s headquarters in a shallow bid to cast doubt about the existence of the company, while saying the company appears to be “nothing more than a shell.”
This premise was debunked by Don Seiffert, BioFlash Editor for the Boston Business Journal, visiting the Cellceutix office and labs only a few days after Mako’s piece was published. Again, Mako played the expert card, touting that he/she has researched more than 1,000 companies, and this time even hired “an independent scientist with a doctorate in biochemistry” to evaluate the science of Cellceutix, ultimately calling it “demonstrably unviable” and the entire pipeline “without value.”
Although certainly presented as if informed, Mako’s evaluation of Cellceutix drug candidates, three of which are in clinical trials, is absolutely fraught with inaccuracies, even down to simple errors that surely would not be made by a scientist with a doctorate in biochemistry. In attempting to dissect Brilacidin, a novel antibiotic that successfully met its endpoints in a Phase 2b clinical trial late last year and is heading into Phase 3 studies, Mako rants about Brilacidin being ineffective against Gram-negative bacteria in the trial.
Even the slightest amount of due diligence shows that patients with Gram-negative infections were excluded from the trial, as clearly stated on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Mako’s rhetoric about Kevetrin, which is in a Phase 1 trial against advanced solid tumors at the esteemed Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was incoherent, irrelevant rambling about its effect on cancer stem cells, which led to criticism of the trial design and biomarker. Readers should take note that Mako (and his doctor colleague) seemed to have stumbled over reading clinical trial exclusion criteria, yet they disparage trial design done in collaboration with venerable oncologists at Dana-Farber. Cellceutix has publicly debunked Mako’s article with science and fact.
Every investor wants to see his or her stake in a company appreciate; it’s obviously the foundation of an investment. Whether a company is the largest of large caps or the smallest of nanocaps, investors need to be aware of short positions and the availability our digital world provides for both credible and malicious activity, so consider the source and read the information critically. In the big picture, it’s just a matter of time before regulations will be shifted to impose accountability upon the cabal of unethical market manipulators out there."
http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/investin...ort-seller
"Mako Takes the Hatchet to Cellceutix
Mako also launched a maligned attack on Cellceutix (CTIX) , employing a similar eye-catching title, “Cellceutix: Empty Office, Unviable ‘Science’, Misleading Disclosures, 96% Downside.” In typical fashion, the theme and format were nearly identical to the Ocata pieces, again showing pictures of the outside of the doors at Cellceutix’s headquarters in a shallow bid to cast doubt about the existence of the company, while saying the company appears to be “nothing more than a shell.”
This premise was debunked by Don Seiffert, BioFlash Editor for the Boston Business Journal, visiting the Cellceutix office and labs only a few days after Mako’s piece was published. Again, Mako played the expert card, touting that he/she has researched more than 1,000 companies, and this time even hired “an independent scientist with a doctorate in biochemistry” to evaluate the science of Cellceutix, ultimately calling it “demonstrably unviable” and the entire pipeline “without value.”
Although certainly presented as if informed, Mako’s evaluation of Cellceutix drug candidates, three of which are in clinical trials, is absolutely fraught with inaccuracies, even down to simple errors that surely would not be made by a scientist with a doctorate in biochemistry. In attempting to dissect Brilacidin, a novel antibiotic that successfully met its endpoints in a Phase 2b clinical trial late last year and is heading into Phase 3 studies, Mako rants about Brilacidin being ineffective against Gram-negative bacteria in the trial.
Even the slightest amount of due diligence shows that patients with Gram-negative infections were excluded from the trial, as clearly stated on the clinicaltrials.gov website. Mako’s rhetoric about Kevetrin, which is in a Phase 1 trial against advanced solid tumors at the esteemed Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was incoherent, irrelevant rambling about its effect on cancer stem cells, which led to criticism of the trial design and biomarker. Readers should take note that Mako (and his doctor colleague) seemed to have stumbled over reading clinical trial exclusion criteria, yet they disparage trial design done in collaboration with venerable oncologists at Dana-Farber. Cellceutix has publicly debunked Mako’s article with science and fact.
Every investor wants to see his or her stake in a company appreciate; it’s obviously the foundation of an investment. Whether a company is the largest of large caps or the smallest of nanocaps, investors need to be aware of short positions and the availability our digital world provides for both credible and malicious activity, so consider the source and read the information critically. In the big picture, it’s just a matter of time before regulations will be shifted to impose accountability upon the cabal of unethical market manipulators out there."
http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/investin...ort-seller
Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX) Stock Research Links
