The Gloves Are Off – Die Hard CTIC Fans Strike Back, Plus Management Has Its Say…
June 1, 2009 at 9:42 pm EST | Tags: ASCO, CEOs & Management, Conferences, Filings & Approvals, Scandals
Presented by cshlpress…
This is getting nasty. Ok guys, we love all our readers, but let’s play nice on the comments. Everyone has a say, right? 
But, we have to admit that this fight is a must-watch! Earlier today, CTIC announced positive Pix data after which CTIC’s stock catapulted past $2. Then, Adam Feuerstein slammed the data along with company management.
The stock came crashing down again after hours, down $0.23 (10.95%) to $1.87 at 8PM EST.
Now, commenters and CTIC fans? have something to say. Here’s an email we received from one DG…
“Great article. I do not know if I have a valid argument but I submitted a complaint to the SEC for his continued bashing. A write with unlimited access to the investment community should not be able to launch personal diatribes against a company. I feel as there is an ulterior motive to his writings. Below is my complaint. Thanks again.”
So did DG really send the SEC an email? Who knows. This is what was purportedly sent (no editing done):
“I wish to question the actions regarding the on-going writings of a Mr. Adam Feuerstein of the investment publication TheStreet.com. Is it lawful for a journalists, with no medical expertise, and who has unlimited access to investors to attack a company on a seemingly personal letter. In his latest article, concerning the release of Cell Therapeutics’ NHL drug Pixantrone, Mr. Feuerstein personally attacked the CEO and senior leadership of Cell Therapeutics and accused them of purposely misleading investors on the effectiveness and side-effects of the aforementioned drug. While this does not meet the exact definition of “market manipulation” on the sec website, surely this warrants questioning. There could be numerous reason why Mr. Feuerstein is so vociferous in his attacks against Cell Therapeutics but I believe that, when viewed in light with his relationship with Jim Cramer, a possible answer is intentional manipulation. Thank you for your time.”
What about Dan Eramian:
“It is amazing to us at CTI how a self-proclaimed expert in biotech research, Adam Feuertsein can pass advice on to readers/clients regarding clinical trial results when that individual has neither a clinical background nor a medical degree. Second, and most importantly, the analyst didn’t even bother to attend ASCO and listen to the interested feedback from physicians and responses from the principal investigator on the PIX301 Extend trial. Had he done so he may have actually learned something about why these results are so important and as Dr. Ruth Pettengal noted, represent a breakthrough in the treatment of patients with relapsed aggressive NHL. The presentation of the PIX301 results was among the most crowded, well attended sessions, underscoring the interest about the compound and the data. In the general oral session following the presentation, PIX301 was reviewed by an expert medical doctor appointed by ASCO to discuss the highlights of that session. The doctor began the session by noting that there are no approved agents for relapsed or refractory aggressive NHL, and that an overall response rate of 30% would be a success for this unmet medical need. He then went on to describe how pixantrone was rationally designed to remove the substitutions responsible for free radical generation, thus allowing anthracyclines to be re-introduced into a disease setting where, due to cardiac toxicity concerns, they are not typically used. The doctor focused on the high overall response rate, the duration of CR being almost twice as long as with standard chemotherapy and notably the overall lack of significant cardiac events despite the high degree of prior anthracycline exposure. He concluded that the promising results was the first randomized study to demonstrate high and durable rates of response in this unmet medical need. It would be worthwhile to refer Mr. Feuerstein to your (Iguana Biotech’s) research notes and the information on the background incidence of cardiac events. That way rather than making assumption regarding missing numbers, he can be educated. Clearly the thought leader discussant and the PI were impressed with the data. Maybe, just maybe, they may know more than a political science major like Mr. Feuerstein.—Dan Eramian, CTI”
And with that we await tomorrow. This is getting juice-aayyyy…
Thoughts?
Anonymous Tip? Comments? Contact us at: hr@iguanabio.com
![[Loading...]](http://www.iguanabio.com/wp-content/themes/IguanaBio/images/ajax-loader.gif){kind=small}
I also complained to the SEC about Adam Feuerstien and his wildly personal and negative bashing of all things CTIC. I believe he has a personal agenda and his comments are for manipulation of stock price which is an SEC violation. I cited previous examples back in January and in May where as CTIC started to take a pps rise, he has slammed the stock and plunged the price. His aricles clearly demonstrate his ignorance of medicine, he struggles to sound as if he knows what he is talking about. But medical professionals (myself included) can easily detect his negative bias and lack of understanding. Compared to other analysts his pieces on CTIC come across as spiteful, stupid and even childish in composition. This poli-sci major with no medical background is going not going to destroy CTIC, he is instead going to destroy the credibility of TheStreet.com as an investor site.
Several things need to be questioned in regards to Adam Feuerstein and his articles.
First and foremost are his credentials as a bio-stock analyst. This is a guy who has a political science degree with a background in real estate and technology, correct? If we’re all going to start getting root canal procedure recommendations from our interior designers, then by all means, his opinion is relevant.
The second item that should be questioned is his timing. Why are the articles written immediately after huge gains? Right when CTIC picks up steam, Adam is there to do his best to bring the stock back down. It has happened with the last three big runs, and has happened with a couple other stocks as well (see: DNDN and VNDA). Is it simply a coincidence? Is it a writer discussing the hot stock for the day? Or are there other, more lucrative motives behind it? Everyone knows his opinion on CTIC. He has made that very clear. So wouldn’t it be a waste of time to any other reporter in the world to rehash a view that people were already aware of; unless that view provided you with an angle?
Lastly, I would have to question the bias in his article(s). The last two were filled with slams against the company and it’s leaders, rather than data. The most recent points out one statistic that he feels was ‘misinterpreted’ during the ASCO conference (that he was not in attendance for), but failed to point out all of the positive data; and there was plenty of it. It just seems convenient to strengthen your argument in such a way by completely ignoring the rest.
I would like to post this content from the hotest NNTP in the land
(pre-approved by the author). Thank you much..
Authored by: abducens2006 (MD)
I wanted to write a detailed explanation of why I felt Feuerstein is wrong yet again earlier today, but I didn’t have time. Unlike Feuerstein, I actually take care of patients with cancer, and I wanted to take the time to review CTIC’s poster carefully before commenting further on it. So, here is goes….
Next, he makes a big deal about 5% decline in LVEF, like pixantrone is some horrible drug. Newsflash, Adam, 5% LVEF reduction does NOT correlate with clinical significance. I guarantee you, if a patient with an LVEF of 55% drops to 50%, the patient will not be symptomatic. Plus, many times MUGA scans or echocardiograms may have subjective interpretation, and the 5% may not be accurate anyway. To me, Feuerstein obsessing over this 5% reduction in LVEF is just silly, and shows he has no experience in clinically managing patients with cancer. To add insult to injury, he makes some snide comment about the comparator arm getting a 1% gain in LVEF. So, Adam, does that mean we should give chemotherapies on the comparator arm as a treatment for CHF? Of course not. Could it be that 1% is subjective, and not worth obsessing over?
Furthermore, he makes note of CTIC’s serious cardiac disorder of 8.8%, but refuses to acknowledge that rate is much lower than historically treated patients with anthracyclines, right there for him to see on the poster. Plus, the comparator arm had a serious cardiac disorder rate of 4.5%, so does that mean all chemotherapies are banned for usage in these patients as well? Of course not. I’ve got news for Feuerstein, chemotherapy is TOXIC, and therefore is associated with side effects. That is inevitable. If Feuerstein ever knew a patient that had cancer, or he himself ever got cancer, he would understand that. For oncologists, we understand that certain chemotherapies are going to have serious toxicities. The payoff depends on benefit. For example, did Feuerstein criticize avastin for Genentech with its 12% risk of stroke/pulmonary embolism/DVT as reported by Duke in glioblastoma patients? Or the 3% risk of intracranial hemorrhage? Guess what? Avastin was FDA approved recently for recurrent glioblastoma, knowing full well these risks are reported in clinical trials. In other words, just because a drug has a low risk of a serious adverse event does NOT disqualify the drug from FDA approval. Avastin very clearly shows this, and I would love to see Feuerstein try to worm his way out of that one.
In addition, he took shots at CTIC for the lack of statistically significant data on overall survival. Someone please remind the resident biotech guru at thestreet.com that 55 people are still alive, and you can’t calculate overall survival reliably until enough time has passed. Furthermore, did Feuerstein even bother to read the chart for time to progression, which clearly shows a subgroup of patients out as long as 25 months? CTIC cannot comment on overall survival with any degree of accuracy until these patients who are still alive are followed out until their death. That sounds morbid, but it’s true. So, for him to rip CTIC for this one is just wrong.
Did he notice progression free survival was improved on the pixantrone arm, and it was statistically significant? Know why? The response rates were clearly far superior on the pixantrone arm.
Lastly, did Feuerstein even bother to note that 15% of the patients on the pixantrone arm previously had stem cell transplants? That means they received super high doses of chemotherapy that ablated their bone marrow, and received a transplant to regrow their bone marrow. So, again, we’re talking about a patient population that is at greater risk of toxicity. I’m frankly amazed the toxicity in this trial was not worse.
I hope investors take some time and due their DD, rather than listen to an unqualified political science major masquerade as a biotech consultant.
I personally think the response data are very encouraging. I think the data on cardiotoxicity, while not perfect, are acceptable, and show a reduction in historically evident cardiotoxicity in patients treated with anthracyclines. I believe all toxicities are manageable, and I would not hesitate to offer pixantrone to a patient based on these results. I think the demographics are well-matched, and the trial was conducted in a randomized, controlled fashion, and that is quite good. I believe pixantrone will achieve FDA approval, and I can’t wait to hear Feuerstein’s temper tantrum. Is he going to blame Renaissance Technologies for sabotaging his agenda against CTIC?
I think Adam Feuerstein is not qualified to comment on biotech stocks. I think CTIC should file a lawsuit against him for slander, because his accusations are childish, immature, incorrect and based on malicious intent. I think thestreet.com should fire Feuerstein and consider hiring a physician who has experience in clinical trials to write these articles. Feuerstein is not qualified to comment on clinical trials, and should not be allowed to report on anything related to medicine.
There, now I’m done.
Almost: Yes, there is enough data to conclude pixantrone is acceptable, in terms of risk, to use on lymphoma patients with advanced disease with few options to help them. I am confident this data will be enough to get FDA approval. Once again, avastin has 12% risk of stroke, pulmonary embolism and blood clots based on data from Duke, and yet it was approved BY THE FDA for glioblastoma patients. I mean, geez, if your logic made sense, avastin wouldn’t be used across the world for patients with high grade brain tumors. Do you get that?
-Abducens
Adam Feuerstein needs to be fully investigated by the SEC for his roles in stock price manipulation and should be sued in a class action suit by both the companies and stockholders that he has most recently slandered in a very carefully planned, timely attack meant to drive down stock rallies of companies. This has happened with CTIC, HEB and DNDN just to name a few. There needs to be stringent laws and guidelines put in place by the SEC governing publication through “headline news” of any articles written by anyone especially with absolutely 0 background or expertise in the field of medicine or oncology.
Geesh, stop with the witch hunt people. Even people without medical degrees are allowed to give their opinions on stocks. Calm down.
I would suggest that every one email TheStreet.com and complain ( http://server.iad.liveperson.net/hc/s-67759791/web/ticketpub/msgcontroller.jsp?surveyname=Customer%20Service ) also email the SEC at enforcement@sec.gov Personal, unfounded attacks have no place in investment ‘journalism’
Thanks