Quote from erikrkolodny:
It's semantics, but the one point we'll have to agree to disagree on is the offering. Even if as you say mangement was guiding investors toward those numbers re the test, it should not have sold off 30% plus. But again, it's all philosophical because that is what happened (although the stock has only recently ticked back above 6). I know the test is not close to being approved (wasn't this the first study of an SDNA test which showed promising results?) but it just hammers home my point: the company saw an opportunity to raise capital and did it at a price they thought they could do it successfully.
I still disagree with you on how the "news" of the Validation Study was received given the 11.5 million share offering.
The comparison with InterMune wasn't even close. These Companies are in two entirely different phases of their business plan. Again, I'm puzzled as to how you could ignore such an important distinction.
At the end of the day, the most important aspect is that the Company has nearly $100 million in cash to get Cologuard approved and to the market place. The FDA clinical trial will only be costing $15-$20 million. All of this is public information and can be found via presentations at various Wall Street investor conferences that are archived in the Investor Relations section of the Exact Sciences corporate website.
Quote from erikrkolodny:
Two GI's and two general practitioners.
I meant studies that are independent of EXAS media mentions. I can say anything I want and cite any study I want about day trading, but there are tons of other studies/facts out there. I was seeking something/anything on the specific topic that EXAS has not highlighted. I was hoping since you knew a lot more about it that you'd know where to guide me/anyone else interested.
In my previous post I cited a 10,000 patient study done in Ontario, Canada in 2008. I believe that I was QUITE CLEAR on that and that the study has nothing to do with a media "reference" (as you claim) to Exact Sciences. Not sure why that fact went over your head. The Canadian study appears in the Annals of Internal Medicine. I'm sure that you can easily find it if you are not lazy.
http://www.annals.org/search?fulltext=colonoscopy&submit=yes&x=23&y=11
As for your GI doc friends...
Are you really surprised that someone that does Colos for a living is going to be skeptical (or non-supportive) of an alternative screening test that provides extremely high sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer, not too mention pre-cancers?
Interestingly enough, Exact's Cologuard will actually lead to more Colos being done, because more of the population will finally get screened. This is a significant point that much of the medical profession misses.
By the way, the Validation Study for Exact's stool DNA test was not conducted "in-house". It was conducted externally by the Mayo Lab.
I would also suggest that you do some due-diligence on the likes of CEO Kevin Conroy and what he was able to achieve at his previous company, Third Wave Technologies. Conroy has quite the resume and this isn't his first time developing a cancer screening test and getting it to the market place.
