For those who do not wish to slog through the disc
Post# of 72447
Posted On: 02/20/2016 10:52:17 AM
Re: scottsmith #18820
For those who do not wish to slog through the discussion below, here is a summary of the attempt to start an argument based on a false premise.
False premise: SYN is a good comparison to CTIX -- SYN tanked on trial failure (which is an untrue statement, it tanked initially because of management errors), therefore CTIX will tank if Prurisol fails, with a strong implication that Prurisol will fail. People should not buy at low levels if there is any risk. (This premise would mean that NO biotech should be bought, ever, because they all have risk.)
When this is shown to be a false example, response is: "Show me a better one" which is an impossibility because there is no similar company at this point. Again, the attempt to discredit someone who disagrees with the premise by using loaded language "you can't possibly believe…." in an attempt to discredit the response, and by shifting the burden of proof from the initial poster who made a poor comparison, to the person who showed the comparison to be inaccurate.
Third post: again topic is shifted away to accuse others of obfuscation, when in fact the obfuscation is on the part of a person who bases a thread on a false comparison, and does not adequately answer the responses which show that it is a futile speculation with incorrect assumptions. In particular, the idea that a "prudent" investor does not buy stocks from low levels because there might be some risk is ludicrous for a biotech investor, who certainly should know that all biotechs carry risk.
Salient points from your posts on this topic:
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3564166
As I showed in my response, SYN was by no means a reasonable comparison.
As for it being a good idea not to buy an extremely low-priced stock with 4 clinical trials currently running and more soon to start, because one fears there MIGHT be a bad outcome for the least important of the 4 drugs: to me there is far more risk in NOT owning a full position of the stock and having to buy it at much higher levels, than the risk from buying this stock at absurdly low present levels. I think it is FAR from "prudent risk management." Experience biotech investors know that these stocks often swing wildly in price, or flatline for long periods of time, and then can move up with breathtaking speed.
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3564950
I answered this at length. However this is an excellent example of trying to shift an argument by first stating an unproven assumption as a likelihood or foregone conclusion ("a [sic] unfavorable P outcome"
, then trying to shift a burden of proving the unprovable (because there IS no comparable company to CTIX right now) onto the person who disagreed with the false premise -- that premise being that it is reasonable to speculate on a share price after a drug failure, when there is no evidence of such failure, and when the share price at the time Prurisol results will come out is unknowable at present.
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3564994
Here, you again try to get your false premise accepted as fact while you shift the conversation to an accusation of obfuscation against another person, because your false premise is not accepted as a reasonable ground for speculation at this point.
False premise: SYN is a good comparison to CTIX -- SYN tanked on trial failure (which is an untrue statement, it tanked initially because of management errors), therefore CTIX will tank if Prurisol fails, with a strong implication that Prurisol will fail. People should not buy at low levels if there is any risk. (This premise would mean that NO biotech should be bought, ever, because they all have risk.)
When this is shown to be a false example, response is: "Show me a better one" which is an impossibility because there is no similar company at this point. Again, the attempt to discredit someone who disagrees with the premise by using loaded language "you can't possibly believe…." in an attempt to discredit the response, and by shifting the burden of proof from the initial poster who made a poor comparison, to the person who showed the comparison to be inaccurate.
Third post: again topic is shifted away to accuse others of obfuscation, when in fact the obfuscation is on the part of a person who bases a thread on a false comparison, and does not adequately answer the responses which show that it is a futile speculation with incorrect assumptions. In particular, the idea that a "prudent" investor does not buy stocks from low levels because there might be some risk is ludicrous for a biotech investor, who certainly should know that all biotechs carry risk.
Salient points from your posts on this topic:
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3564166
Quote:
…..SYN is a reasonable comp…..
Stating that it might be a good idea to withhold from buying until after P results should not be an amazing conclusion. It's just prudent risk management.
As I showed in my response, SYN was by no means a reasonable comparison.
As for it being a good idea not to buy an extremely low-priced stock with 4 clinical trials currently running and more soon to start, because one fears there MIGHT be a bad outcome for the least important of the 4 drugs: to me there is far more risk in NOT owning a full position of the stock and having to buy it at much higher levels, than the risk from buying this stock at absurdly low present levels. I think it is FAR from "prudent risk management." Experience biotech investors know that these stocks often swing wildly in price, or flatline for long periods of time, and then can move up with breathtaking speed.
http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3564950
Quote:
You can't possibly believe a unfavorable P outcome won't hurt shareprice. Do you have a better comp? A baby bio with multiple compounds in Phase 2's with big markets, and one fails?
I answered this at length. However this is an excellent example of trying to shift an argument by first stating an unproven assumption as a likelihood or foregone conclusion ("a [sic] unfavorable P outcome"
, then trying to shift a burden of proving the unprovable (because there IS no comparable company to CTIX right now) onto the person who disagreed with the false premise -- that premise being that it is reasonable to speculate on a share price after a drug failure, when there is no evidence of such failure, and when the share price at the time Prurisol results will come out is unknowable at present. http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3564994
Quote:
Either you think a trial failure for P will hurt the share price or you don't. Simple as that. Anything else is obfuscation.
Here, you again try to get your false premise accepted as fact while you shift the conversation to an accusation of obfuscation against another person, because your false premise is not accepted as a reasonable ground for speculation at this point.
(5)
(0)