[Ed. Note: Dr. KSS writes about medicine and biotech stocks for the Irregulars. He has agreed to our trading restrictions, and his words and opinions are his own. You can see all of his past articles here.]
“All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don’t say the story isn’t accurate.”
—-from All the President’s Men (1976)
“Sure happy it’s Thursday,” Leo Ehrlich, CEO of CellCeutix ($CTIX), must have been saying to himself last week. A truculent hit piece appeared that day (6 August) in Seeking Alpha alleging that the company is worth one percent or less of its present market capitalization, that its main men are notorious wealth destroyers, and alleging scientific slovenliness and willful misleading. Then he had to face a conference call with biotech investor readers of Stock Gumshoe at 3 pm.
Let’s wade back into CellCeutix waters for some paragraphs; while I realize the company is not a top investing priority for most readers, many remain shareholders, and others hold out hope for an eventual turnaround, for an eventual coming right of management and objectives. Are issues with management and execution merely perceptual? Are things at CellCeutix proceeding normatively? Are we “picking” on it? An examination of management in light of recent events may be, for all biotech investors, a rather useful case study for how and when to assess biotechnology company leadership.
While I am not impelled to respond line by line to the article that appeared in Seeking Alpha (because of its non-existent fact checking and striking frequency of articles on biotech equities in which the article’s author isn’t competent to deliberate on the subject matter), it’s worth digressing a little to emphasize that every tenet of the article’s attack on $CTIX science was alarmingly wrong. Quantification of p21 is in fact a standard and reasonable method of assaying for action in the p53 pathway, which Kevetrin is thought to mediate. The company owns rights to a family of defensin mimetic antimicrobial peptides, of which brilacidin is merely one, and has not made false claims about the specificity of their bactericidal activity or mechanisms of resistance. Meanwhile, while new science about molecular mechanisms of psoriasis has me sorely doubting Prurisol will be effective for it, that is quite different from the SA author’s allegations that Prurisol is bogus pseudoscience. The “doctorate in biochemistry” person hired by the author to review the science did a poor ...
This is a discussion topic or guest posting submitted by a Stock Gumshoe reader. The content has not been edited or reviewed by Stock Gumshoe, and any opinions expressed are those of the author alone.