Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
SAVA is one that got away from me. Great Alzheimer's data it seems. Hope someone here has some Cassava / SAVA. I got cute and was in and out for a scalp a few months back, now missing out on a 10-20 bagger.

INMB is another one recommended to me by Tailwinds Research in the Alzheimer's category. Now they may be playing catch-up to SAVA but who knows, maybe lightning will strike twice here.

Do any of the brains here have opinions on these two or other competitors? I know Eli Lilly had some good data recently too but I think SAVA looked superior by improving cognition.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
2K10

How long have you been using Tailwinds? I joined last year but not too active on their forum and been selective around their picks as they are a bit biotech heavy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've read Tailwinds Research (free version) since at least 2019.

Here in June 2019 I had bought ATOM around $5 and $BIVI around $10. But both stocks dropped and lagged for some months/years after that.

https://boards.fool.com/tailwinds-research-34230721.aspx?sor...

Now just in the last 2-4 months these 2 have exploded and are my biggest winners.


Still holding out hope for $ANIX which is moving into clinical trials for cancer vaccine and has other CAR-T for solid tumor FDA IND application coming soon. Tailwinds covers that stock pretty well but its at same price now from 2 years back.

So he is WAY early on some great stocks. But others get dropped quietly with little fanfare. For at least some of the stocks, he is paid for coverage by the companies. Many/most of the stocks he recommends have some funding needs and will do one or more stock offerings, so I sometimes put recommended stocks on a watchlist and wait for the inevitable dump.

It seems @StockReversals on stocktwits has overlap with Tailwinds on some key stock coverage. The last 2-4 months some of the stocks they agree on (e.g. ATOM, INMB) seems to be a good omen. @stockreversals is an unabashed swing trader so hopefully that will give me clues when certain stocks are getting frothy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thanks, that was useful. They do hold various management calls with some of the companies they cover though I have not joined any yet due to the timing, I am asleep during US trading hours. I have seen a few have great results but also a lot of clinical stage biotechs in which case they eventually have to face a binary event so I haven’t really dipped my toe in too deep.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Funny to think that at one point in the very near history that SAVA was a penny stock. But that seems to be the case with several biotech stocks over the last year or so (https://pennystocks.com/featured/2021/07/21/3-biotech-penny-...) The fact is that science is evolving quickly and I think the rapid pace thanks to COVID treatments has helped reveal new, more efficient methods of R&D.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah I guess a way to think of it is -- these biotech companies are just cash burning machines and deserve a very low valuation until they get good data on a compelling indication. So there are a lot more 10-20 baggers out there waiting for their drug(s) to prove themselves in trials.

But also -- all these AD plays are going after the same patients. Even if you have a good drug, it may not be the BEST drug and ultimately may not get approved or get good market share. So to be LTBH you have to really understand the competitive space. Right now I think all Alzheimers drugs are in favor, people just throwing money at the category now that FDA approved one drug, they think BIIB's results are relatively easy one to improve upon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Right now I think all Alzheimers drugs are in favor, people just throwing money at the category now that FDA approved one drug, they think BIIB's results are relatively easy one to improve upon.

I don't see how you can talk about aducanumab setting a new standard and easing the way for other anti-Alzheimer's drugs to follow suit. The approval has been reviled by those on the evaluation panel, who (all except 1, I think) strongly called for it to be rejected. The reason? The data indicated that it has little to no benefit--basically no impact--and requires regular costly brain MRI monitoring because of the high risk of brain inflammation. Most of the advisory panel has resigned, there's been a hue and cry everywhere, and a House committee is going to hold hearings. Aducanumab is basically an incredibly expensive piece of false hope with real risk of further brain damage. I would think that this will make everyone a lot more wary about singing the praises of a new Alzheimer's drug.

What's really needed first is a far better understanding of the pathology underlying Alzheimer's. Nothing that has approached it via beta-amyloid has had any success.

=sheila
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't see how you can talk about aducanumab setting a new standard and easing the way for other anti-Alzheimer's drugs to follow suit.

What I was suggesting is aducanumab sets a a very low standard by the FDA, many other candidates think they can do far better for AD patients both in safety and efficacy. Meanwhile medicare and insurers will have started getting used to paying $56K / yr for treatment, priming the pump for the next better drug to take that market share.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What I was suggesting is aducanumab sets a a very low standard by the FDA, many other candidates think they can do far better for AD patients both in safety and efficacy.

The impression you had given when you said: "they think BIIB's results are relatively easy one to improve upon,"--at least to me--is that they won't have to perform "far better" at all, but simply represent some modest degree of improvement over aducanumab.

Meanwhile medicare and insurers will have started getting used to paying $56K / yr for treatment, priming the pump for the next better drug to take that market share.

Again--you're ignoring the broad and highly vocal push-back against this exhorbitant cost. It is considered off-puttingly high even for a drug that actually works. And in addition, that $56K/yr is only part of the cost. Add in the monthly brain MRI $$ to catch brain swelling early, when it's developing. And then for those patients who are experiencing that adverse effect, there's the $$ for treating them.

aducanumab sets a a very low standard by the FDA, many other candidates think they can do far better for AD patients both in safety and efficacy.

Not unless they've found a target that actually inhibits further progression. And even better--enables repair of current damage. Beta-amyloid ain't gonna do it. That is quite clear by now.

I don't think you're taking the spectrum of significant realities into account.

=sheila
Print the post Back To Top