Thank you!!!
I have been having a good laugh with the stock price reaction (seriously) over the last two days, as I keep asking myself: what was everyone expecting when the price went up before the AACR conference, and what on earth were the sellers of the last days expecting? What would have been a good poster/presentation? What kind of results would have been good enough for them?
Frankly, it is difficult to understand their reason to sell (it is a free country and I respect it), apart from telling myself: “it is manipulation by the penny dealers,” or whatever.
So, we get a 2-week 70% median ctDNA decline in a population where 62.5% had KRAS and/or NRAS mutations — the hardest to treat in oncology — patients who had been treated with several other colorectal cancer treatments, and one patient even completely CLEARED ctDNA.
And then 70% (9 out of 13) with RECIST data had shrinkage or stable disease. What did they want?
Maybe they wanted PD 1 data? From pooled data we know that this will be very good. Our narrative in the cold-to-hot story is simply that: the induction of this in the tumor cells. The full PD L1 dataset will be presented at May’s ASCO in Chicago and will be good (maybe an understatement).
Or maybe they are not happy with the fact that all evaluable tissue samples were CCR5 positive? That is to say: the potential patients are the majority. Like 100% or close.
Perhaps they wanted radiological proof that LL is working? Sorry — there is just not time for that. Imaging assessments are normally 8–12 weeks after treatment starts. This will enable further statistical data such as ORR, which we will have in due time.
Or maybe the fact that we are trying to treat one of the more difficult conditions, with a historically very low percentage of patients responding to treatment, is not to their liking… (it makes you think why they acquired CYDY shares in the first place).
Or they did not like the fact that there were no adverse effects due to LL?
What did they want?
I don’t know. I only know, though, that investors like that make it possible to profit. If we were all rational, the stock price would be much, much higher… and there wouldn’t be the opportunity for us and new investors to still buy more shares at these prices.
Market inefficiency (irrational investors) is what makes us profit. So no, I don’t want to know what they wanted — I just want to say: Thank you!!!
I have been having a good laugh with the stock price reaction (seriously) over the last two days, as I keep asking myself: what was everyone expecting when the price went up before the AACR conference, and what on earth were the sellers of the last days expecting? What would have been a good poster/presentation? What kind of results would have been good enough for them?
Frankly, it is difficult to understand their reason to sell (it is a free country and I respect it), apart from telling myself: “it is manipulation by the penny dealers,” or whatever.
So, we get a 2-week 70% median ctDNA decline in a population where 62.5% had KRAS and/or NRAS mutations — the hardest to treat in oncology — patients who had been treated with several other colorectal cancer treatments, and one patient even completely CLEARED ctDNA.
And then 70% (9 out of 13) with RECIST data had shrinkage or stable disease. What did they want?
Maybe they wanted PD 1 data? From pooled data we know that this will be very good. Our narrative in the cold-to-hot story is simply that: the induction of this in the tumor cells. The full PD L1 dataset will be presented at May’s ASCO in Chicago and will be good (maybe an understatement).
Or maybe they are not happy with the fact that all evaluable tissue samples were CCR5 positive? That is to say: the potential patients are the majority. Like 100% or close.
Perhaps they wanted radiological proof that LL is working? Sorry — there is just not time for that. Imaging assessments are normally 8–12 weeks after treatment starts. This will enable further statistical data such as ORR, which we will have in due time.
Or maybe the fact that we are trying to treat one of the more difficult conditions, with a historically very low percentage of patients responding to treatment, is not to their liking… (it makes you think why they acquired CYDY shares in the first place).
Or they did not like the fact that there were no adverse effects due to LL?
What did they want?
I don’t know. I only know, though, that investors like that make it possible to profit. If we were all rational, the stock price would be much, much higher… and there wouldn’t be the opportunity for us and new investors to still buy more shares at these prices.
Market inefficiency (irrational investors) is what makes us profit. So no, I don’t want to know what they wanted — I just want to say: Thank you!!!
31
