Larry,
Thanks for explaining the deal behind the preferred stock. I'm sorry if I confused you in my analysis that I wrote for Richard. I just assumed everyone would know what I was talking about. I can understand how this could be confusing to someone who just joined this thread.
Let's go back to Oct. 17th when they announced results of their AndroCar study. (See post #643). Many of us found this announcement to be more alarming than encouraging. Richard Davis first pointed out that the numbers of the patients in the release didn't add up. We were also concerned because PRLN announced in May that they were going to expand their compassionate use trial for AndroCar (PN 27,1) from 7 patients to 300 patients. They said this expanded trial would last for three months, so we were expecting them to release the results of a study on 300 people. There was a lot of confusion and anguish going on, so I sent a Fax to the company on Oct. 20. Read post 686 which contains most of the contents of my Fax. It contains a summary of the questions we had as well a copy of several relevant posts. Art Koch, the Chief Financial Officer of PRLN answered my questions in post 779. After you read this I think you will agree with me that their public relations have been inelegant at best. Some people believe that they intentionally released an ambiguous statement on Oct. 17 to hide the death of one of the patients. I don't know if that was their intent, but this is not totally outlandish speculation based on the evidence. If they were trying to cover the death up, however, it was a totally foolish move, especially considering that it was probably not caused by AndroCar. Fortunately, Art Koch seemed to promise us that they will put more effort into keeping investors better informed in the future.
Now, as far as my recent post to Richard, I said:
>The situation today is much different, as I see it. I can put my >finger on several fundamental reasons why the stock price declined. >1)PRLN failed to expand their comapssionate use test to 300 subjects >as promised. 2) The results of the compassionate use test were mixed. >3) The way they announced those results were confusing at best, and >could easily lead one to believe that they were trying to cover up
>the death of one of the patients. 4) They have not divulged the >results of the Bastyr study. I think the market has been grown >impatient waiting for results that should have been in hand months >ago.
Points 1, 2, and 3 refer to AndroCar (originally known as PN 27,1). The 4th point refers to AndroVir (originally known as PN 355). They announced last January that they were going to have a small safety trial of PN355 at Bastyr University. This trial was supposed to last only 6 months, so they should have finished the trial a few months ago. Everyone is impatient for them to release the results of that trial. I'm guessing that the results must have been at least a bit encouraging. Otherwise, it would make no sense for them to be rushing AndroVir to market. We don't know why they haven't released the data from this test, but some of us think they might be waiting to release it at an AIDS conference later this week.
Robin M. |
