Monday, March 7, 2011
Readers Respond: The Legitimacy of Cel-Sci Corp
"Readers Respond" is a forum where VFC interacts with the readers of VFC's Stock House. Readers can leave comments on posted material at either of the blog sites, through Seeking Alpha or via email, email@example.com. All stock opinions, tips and questions are welcomed, whether agreeable with VFC's opinions or not. Thanks for the comments, because without interaction - this wouldn't be fun.
From George in a comment posted to VFC's NEW Stock House:
There was an article from the Motley Fool claiming CVM may not be legitimate. The link is below. Thoughts? http://www.fool.com/investing/small-cap/2011/02/18/an-inside-look-at-biotech-investing-part-2.aspx Thanks, George
VFC's Take: I did see that article when it was posted a couple of weeks ago, although I will say that I'm unimpressed with the content. I don't think it's fair to label a company as illegitimate in a passing comment like that without saying why.
To be honest, that looks like the kind of cheap-shot blogging that is usually reserved for TheStreet.com and this guy may have skimmed some biotech blogger articles over at that site for the names of a couple of companies to call "illegitimate."
Because there was no statements made to try and corroborate this guys's claim, who know what he means by his words.
There is undoubtedly a Multikine processing facility near Baltimore, Maryland that is manned with the staff as advertised by the company, and that also contains the oft-mentioned cold-fill facility. I've been given a personal inside look, so that part of the Cel-Sci story is not "illegitimate."
The Phase II trial did take place and Multikine does hold quite a bit of potential if it passes Phase III.
Granted, the roll-out of the Phase III is looking a bit fishy right now since there has been no announced patient enrollment to go with all the 'site approval' PRs, but does that make the company "illegitimate?"
I don't think so.
This is an example of "click-searching" by the Motley Fool, in my opinion, as you'll often see much-talked-about stocks thrown in an article somehow just to attract clicks and increase advertising revenue. Call it the art pathetically mastered by TheStreet.com.
To give the Fool credit, though, at least you don't need to click through five pages just to read one article.
Take this one with a grain of salt, and The Fool went down a notch when I read that article - not because I agree or disagree, but because the author threw a few companies under the bus without providing reasoning or backup.
At the least, that's a very unprofessional thing to do for a supposed-to-be reputable website.
Disclosure: Long CVM.