Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 / Medical : momo-T/FIF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (12009)	12/28/2018 11:02:07 AM
From: Robohogs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12215

Good luck.

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (12009)	12/28/2018 11:33:11 AM
From: Miljenko Zuanic	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12215

RE: AFMD From the chart perspective, does anyone expect that it will close gap? (deep <2.0)

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (12009)	1/3/2019 1:49:13 PM
From: bmaz001	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12215

I can't contribute much regarding the science, but I can offer you a Google workbook like the one I posted on the 'less than cash' thread. I would limit it to the ticker symbols in your list so you can focus on those. Interested?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (12009)	1/16/2019 11:23:45 AM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12215

Interesting little thread/concept on preclinical publications. This guy uses it to short questionable early stage companies. I know you don't do this, but perhaps it helps point to ones to avoid, since you to tend towards early stage companies. And I needed a place to park this where it might be seen here: Shorting bad preclinical publications Of course, it takes some work. But there's a raft of early stage IPOs approaching lock-up expiration to boot, where this concept could be applied profitably to separate the wheat from the chaff and then act according to one's trading style. Don't be surprised if I come back to this with some attempts at examples and ask for a second opinion from actual SI scientists. Cheers, Tuck