Day 6:

Hello!

So, if you look at my Twitter history, I called a retracement today! Go me! The Dow Jones was down 65 points, after hitting a low of 8560~ on the day.

So,... I got out of all my stuff yesterday, and thankfully I took those profits.

I did try to play Patriot Coal PCX and Pulte PHM, and that didn't work out for me today. I actually ended picking up both stocks around 8.70 for PHM and 8.38 for PCX respectively, but the downward push on the market continued until I got out just before close. So, yea.. I lost a bit, but I think it will continue down tomorrow and I should be able to find a solid re-entry point. I guess that's the thing about day-trading, I know if I held long, I'd get profits on both those stocks at those particular prices, but I need to keep capital free if I wanna make any money in the short term.

In other news, Cell Therapeutics CTIC has been up-and-down all this week and for the last month. I have a fairly large position in CTIC from 1.19. There has been a huge battle between the company PR and thestreet.com bio-pharma editorial guy, Adam Feuerstein.

I am really confident in CTIC and the product they have to offer. I did my due diligence and read the reports. Like any librarian we have to go through statistics, so I was even more sure that their product Pixantrone would go on to big things. Adam Feuerstein doesn't agree that CTIC is a huge money maker, and in that, I think he is correct - however, he is working his hardest to try and bankrupt a company that has made the greatest strides in the last year in regards to finally curing cancer. I understand he is a business man and it's not his job to be nice, but I am beginning to question his motives and his reporting objectivity. After his article tonight about CTIC's other drug OPAXIO (a drug that targets lung cancer), I had to write him a letter.

Here is what I wrote:

Hey, Adam.

I've been reading your articles about CTIC regularly, and although I appreciate someone humbling the pumpers, I do take issue with some what what you say, and how you're saying it.

You claim that you write the article as a businessman, as a person looking to illuminate others as the potential valuation of a stock, and how it might perform on the market.

Example, May 14th, 2009:

Your quote,

"Cell Therapeutics estimates that population to be about 5,300 patients in the United States and further forecasts 25% market penetration at peak. If the company prices pixantrone at $40,000 (again, a Cell Therapeutics estimate), peak sales pencil out to $53 million."

Obviously, you were even liberal with that number - the article itself is well written, is generally devoid of personal attacks, and you even give, PR guy Dan Eramian's response, the front page of your article.

However, as the weeks have gone by, your objectivity to the product is being put into question for good reason. Your duty to your readership to provide a well researched and unbiased piece is becoming jeopardized:

Your words,

"I haven't even addressed the efficacy of pixantrone, but there was little new information shed in today's presentation that wasn't previously disclosed by the company. An analysis of survival favored pixantrone-treated patients, but the result was nowhere close to being statistically significant, with a p value of 0.54. Statistical significance requires a p value of 0.05."

How can you even consider this fair and unbiased reporting when you focus on the only statistic in the entire Pixantrone study that can be deemed negative?

http://www.biotechnology-europe.com/news/news%20by%20company/Cell-Therapeutics/2009/01.06.2009%20Pixantrone%20Significantly%20Increases%20Complete%20Remissions,%20Overall%20Response%20Rates%20Frequency%20of%20Durable%20Remissions.html

Quote from the site:

" Intent to treat Analysis results per FDA agreed upon Statistical Analysis Plan
Significant Increase in Complete Remission Rates 20% vs. 5.7%; p=0.021
Significant Increase in Overall Response Rate 37.1% vs. 14.3%; p=0.003
Significant increase in percent of all patients whose response lasted greater than or equal to four months 25.7% vs. 8.6%; p=0.012
Significant Increase in Progression Free Survival 4.7 months vs. 2.6 months; p=0.007
Positive trend in Overall Survival even though data not fully mature with median 8.1 month vs. 6.9 month; p=0.544 "

You and I know both know that's old news, but if you're going to focus on that one statistic, the only non-statistically significant in the report, then you have to discard you argument about cardiac toxicity, because that is also a) currently statistically insignificant, and b) unfair because patients on Pixantrone have lived longer and had more chances to have cardio-toxicity show their ill effects.

Now unlike most, I actually think you write rather well, but I think you need to take a step away from CTIC, or at least re-evaluate how you present your arguments, because you're coming dangerously close to tabloid-level respectability in regards to your biases.

Yours,

Dennis Michailides, MLIS

If nothing else, I just hope this leads him to report more responsibly in the future. You can not like a company and its management, illuminate investors about potential pitfalls, and do so without coming across like your pushing a tabloid.

Anyways, more fun tomorrow!

P.S. It just occured to me I made a spelling error in the letter. I spelled 'response' without the necessary "s". Doh!