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 : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: erickerickson who wrote (62844)	9/27/2024 12:06:37 PM
From: luckydog88	3 Recommendations Recommended By erippetoe jhcimmu rodneyh07 Respond to of 63324

Seems like a very valid decision to make. It is hard to reconcile the wording regarding data being manipulated from 4+ years ago with the current trials going on today. For what it is worth, here is Matt's more recent post on twitter (x) - and he does own over 5% of the company I believe (I think a saw a filing a little while back). SEC and DOJ Cannot Prove $sava Dr. Wang Manipulated Results. If they could they would have said how! The samples are loaded to aliquots and the same aliquot is used to measure 3 biomarkers. Dilution is not possible because he does not know the level of the biomarker and AB42 moves in the opposite direction. The ELISA machine outputs to a file with a timestamp. Three values are run for each biomarker and sample. The values go through a linear regression to get starting and ending values. There is no way to edit those values without CLEAR EVIDENCE of manipulation and the math would be incredibly difficult to perform. If the DOJ or SEC had that evidence they would have shown it. They don't have it so they just skipped it all and said he did it. There is very clear evidence that exists that show HOAU DID NOT ALTER THE MACHINE RESUTLS WITH TIMESTAMPS AND PROOF. They didn't say how he did it because they could not figure out how. The DOJ could not press forward with biomarker manipulation charges because the evidence does not exist and they could not prove it. They could not mention it in any of these complaints because there is ZERO proof it happened. The SEC cherry picked one biomarker that showed some of the data points that he could have been unblinded made the placebo looked worse. There were 11 biomarkers. Why didn't they show them all? Because like the other two they showed, it did not align with their narrative.

To: erickerickson who wrote (62844)	9/27/2024 12:41:55 PM
From: scorman1	3 Recommendations Recommended By erickerickson erippetoe jhcimmu Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 63324

Erick, you are confusing a possible cherry picking on the original 64patient 28day placebo controlled trial, with the OL extention, CMS, then continuation, which provide a 2yr zero cogs loss vs 11% decline from 20+yr historic placebo degradation... that is a fact! QED. Odd that you bailed, while Matt N, who has a personal family medical risk, has increased his position to 5% of the outstanding shares, and who has spoken to Wang, Remi, Rick, and Lindsay and does NOT have the concerns you expressed. OT... who gets the $40mill anyway?