Biotech / Medical
Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated
An SI Board Since September 2006
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
43717 260 20 IMMU
Emcee:  erickerickson Type:  Moderated
Welcome to the moderated Silicon Investor message board for Immunomedics (IMMU). After watching several other forums degenerate, I decided to start this forum for anyone who values reasonable discussion. I've made it a moderated board so I have some control over whether it stays civil or not...

Please observe the following courtesies:

> No personal attacks. This includes attributing motives to posters. You know, "you are a pumper", or "you must be short", or..... Such accusations are unprovable in the first place and in the second place contribute nothing to the discussion.

> Please refrain from posts about posts. If you see a post you find obnoxious or that you think violates the TOU, just report a TOU violation to the SI admins by clicking the link near the bottom. The SI admins have been doing a great job of removing all traces of posters who violate the spirit of SI TOU (see below). Responding only encourages more of the same as well as decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio. See "Responding to Tone" below.

> We very much value differing viewpoints. Feel free to disagree with someone all you want. Just do so civilly.

> Take a look at Graham's "hierarchy of disagreement": Hierarchy if you want an idea of what I consider actionable. In my ideal world, when people disagree, their posts would be at least "contradiction" and ideally "counterargument" and above. I'll start to create a mental list of people skating close to the edge when I see posts at "Responding to Tone". Anything below that earns a censure (not censor since I can't alter or delete existing posts, only the SI admins have that power) as soon as I see it, with or without warning.

You can see the SI Terms Of Use (TOU) at and it's apparent that the admins interpret these rather broadly. They give the usual sophistries people engage in when trying to skate close to the edge short shrift. My personal summary of the TOU is "play nice, be adult". SIAdmin (Dave) and SI Spam Patrol (Cheeky Kid) are our friends <G>. Here is a wonderful example of how this works... 8320. Note SI Dave's response was there prior to any other poster posting. Don't waste your time....

Again, welcome! I think you'll find this a fine place to learn about and contribute to others' understanding of IMMU and its prospects.

Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
43717 IMMU-130: Phase I/II Trial of Labetuzumab Govitecan (Anti-CEACAMli351110yesterday
43716Erick -- yes, they have been clear, prior to now, the burn rates will go up. A lallatwwk-Thursday
43715A few things that jumped out at me: "...roughly $10 to $12 million in nonrerickerickson12Thursday
43714The Cowen analyst summary is how I see it. IMMU laid out a map and they're fallatwwk4Thursday
43713Immunomedics Right on Track Immunomedics, Inc. (NASDAQ:IMMU) shares were fallinpatlawche1112Thursday charts!jargonweary2Thursday
43711quite a trading range for one day with relatively little news. While there was sallatwwk-Thursday
43710Great Action on a crappy market day. Finally some decent volume too. Maybe theEagleRare-Thursday
43709On the share count, the question got answered in the cc. 110 million used for nallatwwk-Thursday
43708Last I saw that there will be 80 to 100 site for the P3 trial in the US and the dorightbythem-Thursday
43707At least we now know for certain, put a stake in it, that Cindy is out of the midorightbythem2Thursday
43706If you read between the lines, Behzad is very confident in the full set of data EagleRare-Thursday
43705Couldn't be on the call yesterday but took a read of the transcript. Nothingsukit-Thursday
43704very nice update... Listen to the Webcast erippetoe1Thursday
43703Could be Willey, I've read it both ways, but no doubt Nasdaq does it a speciidahoranch1-Wednesday
43702Sorry for the late reply, got kind of busy after the conference call. I see it&#idahoranch11Wednesday
43701Idaho I believe it is based on outstanding shares Could be wrong but it is twilly61-Wednesday
43699Idaho, what's your source for this assertion? I had always thought outstandisysiphus-Wednesday
43698Your word use(s), your thought provoking presentation(s), your consideration(s) samcat5005Wednesday
43697Institutional ownership % is based on the float, not the outstanding shares. So idahoranch12Wednesday
43696I believe the 81 % is wrong on the NASDAQ site It is based on 110 shares outstwilly61-Wednesday
43695 "Is SGEN considered an institutional owner? Doc and Cindy? Not sure aboFitzhughlaw1Wednesday
43694is SGEN considered an institutional owner? Doc and Cindy? Not sure about SGEN. allatwwk-Tuesday
43693Doright, the 81% is really an astonishing figure, and based upon the informal reFitzhughlaw3Tuesday
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
Copyright © 1995-2017 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.