fear of fracking

[Toronto.gal]

Filtering the positive from the negative facts about penny stocks, the most speculative & dangerous of all, requires tremendous knowledge/research skills/time, etc., that only a very, very few possess, and when people go out of their way to talk daily/weekly about several penny stocks on a forum like CMF & with over-the-top convictions, I also get suspicious [regardless of information provided, good or bad].

Sharing information about a new technology, stock, etc., is one thing; promoting/pumping and forever sharing one's ACB and DCA strategies is another.

The dangers of penny stocks are many [liquidity, manipulation, just to name a few] & probably the worst & most painful decision that some have/will have made.

HP is trying to protect the gullible/novice investors here and I support the comments even when everyone is responsible for their own investing/failures/successes.

[HaroldCrump]

My main concern with these couple of threads (GFS, Argex, etc.) is that other than a small one-line disclaimer buried among 2 pages of posts, there is no balanced view presented.
The stocks in question have been described with hyperbolic language as if they were a sure-thing.

This is not a big bank or big telecom stock we are talking about here, which can be easily research by almost anyone with a computer and a pulse.
It is one thing to say that Bank of America stock is about to go through the roof, and quite another thing to talk about these types on companies in the same manner.

These stocks are arcane, and the technology they deal with requires specialized knowledge.
The owners and backers of these companies are shrouded in mystery and often located abroad, pulling the strings through a myriad set of holding companies.

The degree of optimisim and confidence expressed about some of these stocks obviously leads to suspicion of various kinds.

Evidence the fact that as a result of these discussions, at least one poster has already bought into these stocks - possibly more silent ones could have, and we just don't know because they don't post.

[OptsyEagle]

What about the investors that buy into the stocks that are talked about, that go up. Where's the discussion about that.

My point is that I read these discussions to hear about stocks that I have not really looked at too closely. Obviously if someone owns it, they will be optimistic about its potential (if not they would not own it anymore). This will always create a bias, that the reader will need to understand. I don't believe that the lions share of positive posts are from someone hoping to have others pile in, just so that they can sell immediately. I am quite sure they would like to see others pile in, why else would they have bought the stock in the first place.

In summary, if posters did not give their opinions on the stocks that they own, which undoubtedly will be very bullish, then you will find that the ability to find any information about any stocks would severely diminish. I also appreciate the negative opinion as well. As I do my DD I tend to be able to find it fairly quickly, before I make my investing decision. I suggest others work hard at doing the same. It is about the only part of this lesson that I learned, that can at times, be very helpful.

The bottom line is. Anyone who is going to read a post, from someone who owns the stock (you can usually tell from the post) and buys it on that information alone, was destined to lose their money in the end. Their experience was obviously not high enough to preserve it and there is little anyone here could really do about that. All that being said, I appreciate all comments, positive or negative. It helps me discover new ideas and see alternate viewpoints.

[Toronto.gal]

The degree of optimisim and confidence expressed about some of these stocks obviously leads to suspicion of various kinds.

Like for example saying that a drug in Phase II trials "will rock the world when it comes out." While I'm a fan/investor in the pharma sector and appreciate knowing what companies are researching what, NOBODY knows for sure until the FDA results come out. Case in point, many drugs have failed even with outstanding Phase III data. The one that was mentioned to rock the world, may very well be the case, but to say that it will succeed for sure, is simply false.

Interestingly enough, when I commented about being careful with such stocks to the above mentioned, I received NO reply.

[HaroldCrump]

Perhaps the best parallel example we can draw are the RE pumpers on here.
Many of them are genuinely optimistic and bullish about RE.

But it is one thing to be an experienced, knowledgeable RE investor, fully aware of the nuances of property selection and management, the risks involves, the legalities and regulations, etc.
It is another thing to egg on newbies, with stars in their eyes, into an extremely competitive and risky market, fraught with unscrupulous brokers, agents, loan sharks, tenants, etc.

We have this situation described above come up very often.
And each time someone or the other questions the motives of the poster.

[PMREdmonton]

Like for example saying that a drug in Phase II trials "will rock the world when it comes out." While I'm a fan/investor in the pharma sector and appreciate knowing what companies are researching what, NOBODY knows for sure until the FDA results come out. Case in point, many drugs have failed even with outstanding Phase III data. The one that was mentioned to rock the world, may very well be the case, but to say that it will succeed for sure, is simply false.

Interestingly enough, when I commented about being careful with such stocks to the above mentioned, I received NO reply.

If you don't believe blank company and their new drug which is actually a vaccine against several tumour markers of cancer stem cells is going to be a revolutionary product because results are limited I can accept that. This is a condition that I treat and I know what the results are for the cancer involved - quick death. People don't live 3 years with this condition. The vaccine allowed 40% of patients to achieve this status. This is a cancer that affects young people - in their 20s and 30s. The initial study was done under controlled conditions and should be repeatable.

The beauty of the technology is that they developed a methodolgy to creating these vaccines very cheaply and can produce a tremendous supply of them just from one sample. This was a giant leap in the field compared to Dendreon and their drug Provenge for prostate cancer which was very expensive and provided minimal gain in life expectancy. Yet that durg has taken off. The company I have been following also has agreements in place regarding licences for several other tumour markers for different cancers so they may be able to develop a pipeline of similar vaccines.

I know several other drugs look good in early studies only to fail later on but this treatment almost certainly won't have major side effects because it is a vaccine against tumour markers. It is not really a drug as much as it is your own immune system tweaked to kill the tumour. The next reason why the results were significant is they were looking at a very hard data point - death. The 3rd reason it is important is it didn't just barely beat placebo - it crushed it. The 2-year survival was 80% on treatment versus 27% from typical standard of care (radiation and chemo). That is a stunning achievement. They now just have to finish off the next phases of trials in placebo trials and then go into production.

Their current pipeline has a number of upcoming targets. They are actively developing a treatment for ovarian cancer at the moment. They may soon be going onto colon or breast cancer.

I like the company's chances but early biotechs are always a big gamble. That's why I haven't written about them much.

The board does not appear receptive to open talk about promising young companies so I won't bring any of them up again. All I wanted to do is stimulate conversation about the companies but all I got was a kick in the nads and ridicule. The only thing I might do is give relevant news-based updates about threads I have already started like I did this week on Argex only to be attacked again for quoting a news release.

[humble_pie]

edmonton this is a decent forum. If i were in your place i would be ashamed of myself. Here is just one of your lurid statements. This one is from 18 april/12.

" ... IMUC ... are in phase II trial of a product that will rock the world when it comes out. GBM is a devastating brain cancer that strikes young people and I hvae treated many people with this condition. Their results in phase I were earth shattering - 40% survival at 3 years compared to usual hx of 12 months."

you are implying here that the new IMUC product in Phase I trial showed a human 40% survival rate after 3 years.

the problem here is that the IMUC trials to date do not include one single human subject.

all Phase I & Phase II testing involves laboratory animals or in vitro studies only. A principal reason is to protect human subjects - who are nearly always suffering from a major disease to begin with - from unknown dangerous side effects associated with an untested chemical.

Phase I & Phase II studies are designed to show that it is probably safe to proceed with human subjects. It is not until Phase III that actual human test subjects are used for the 1st time.

Immunocellular Therapeutics confirms that testing to date does not include any human subjects. Testing has consisted of computer algorithms, human cells in vitro, and live mice studies.

http://www.reuters.com/finance/stock...y-developments

to post up purple prose as you have done in this forum, forecasting that a Phase I result is "earthshattering" or that a new drug "will rock the world when it comes out," is imho unspeakably irresponsible.

[PMREdmonton]

Yes, it was a phase I trial.

Yes, it did involve human subjects.

Yes, they are doing a larger phase II trial.

I absolutely do not recommend anyone on this site ever invest in this company. It is far too risky - I only gave some information to defend myself about my terrible results on the companies I have picked. The last couple of months have been a terrible time for high risk companies and many have been crushed.

I really feel like I am being attacked about these small companies and I don't want to talk about them anymore. I won't bring them up but what you said about this company is 100% false.

You can read about the company here:

http://www.imuc.com/imuc-10-05-2011

HP, when they talk about patients they mean humans. We don't refer to mice as patients.

Here is some more information for patients interested in participating in phase II of the study:

http://www.imuc.com/about-ict-107.php

[PMREdmonton]

Here is a proper description of the different phases of clinical trials for those who are interested. Notice that phase I and II involve humans.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/ctphases.html

Do you have anymore falsehoods to spread?

[PMREdmonton]

I looked at your link HP. I see no evidence there that IMUC has not used its treatments on humans. You'll have to find another website source with your "evidence".