ae kusterer
1 hour ago
The DOJ indicted Andrew Left today based in part on the first quote below (1). In the second quote(2) , Larry Smith describes Adam Feuerstain's 5/10/22 short attack on $nwbo that sent the stock from $2.10 the day before to $0.38 on the 10th. Like Left , on 5/10/22, Feuerstein could have coordinated the release of his short report that day on the dc vax l trial results , released also on 5/10/22 ,with many hedge funds . Let's recall that the trade volume on 5/10/22 was 77 million shares, up appreciably from average daily volume of 1.5 million shares.
https://nytimes.com/2024/07/26/business/andrew-left-short-seller-fraud.html
https://justice.gov/usao-cdca/media/1361671/dl?inline (doj complaint)
https://sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-89.pdf. (sec complaint)
1) "Defendant LEFT coordinated with hedge funds to disseminate short reports and information to be posted on Twitter, coordinated with hedge funds regarding the timing of publication, and enabled the hedge funds to trade in the Targeted Securities before the reports were disseminated. In exchange for sharing his planned announcements with the hedge funds in advance of posting them publicly, the hedge funds paid defendant LEFT a portion of their trading profits."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174819848
2) F-stein wrote an article during or shortly after the NYAS presentation on May 10, 2022 that falsely stated that the phase 3 trial of DCVax-L failed. This drew an indignant and angry response from Dr. Steven Toms, a board certified neurosurgeon at Rhode Island who participated in the trial and has had very positive experiences with patients he has treated with DCVax-L. He absolutely torched F-stein’s attacks on DCVax-L in a series of tweets that challenge tweets from F-stein and hedge fund employees. This interchange between Dr. Toms and F-stein shines a remarkable light on how F-stein gaslights DCVax-L. Here are the tweets from Dr. Toms.
https://smithonstocks.com/explanation-of-how-adam-feuerstein-has-egregiously-misrepresented-the-results-of-the-phase-3-trial-of-dcvax-l/
Explanation of How Adam Feuerstein Has Egregiously Misrepresented the Results of the Phase 3 Trial of DCVax-L
POSTED by LARRY SMITH on NOV 22, 2022 • (0)
Tagged as DCVax-L phase 3 trial, Refuting Adam Feuerstein's misrepresentation that DCVax-L phase 3 Trial failed + Categorized as Company Reports, LinkedInExecutive SummaryI have tried to make this report as short and readable as possible so that in many cases I provide links to a previous article I have written or other pertinent data, rather than recreating the information in this report. So, you will find lots of links. The intent is to give the reader my conclusions in short form in this executive summary, but also to provide access to in-depth information for those seeking more detail.Adam Feuerstein and his employer, Stat News, continue to falsely allege that the phase 3 trial of DCVax-L failed. This is a jaw dropping accusation given that:The 70 plus investigators who participated in the trial co-authored a paper describing the phase 3 trial and its results and concluding that the trial had successfully reached its primary endpoint of median overall survival (mOS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (ndGBM) and the secondary endpoint of mOS in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM).
The prestigious New York Academy of Science featured a presentation at its conference on May 10, 2022 in which the presenter unequivocally stated that the trial successfully reached its primary and secondary endpoints. This was the first time that unblinded topline data from the trial was made public.
On November 17, 2022 JAMA Oncology, a Journal of the American Medical Association publication, printed a peer reviewed article clearly stating that the trial successfully reached its endpoints. This was, of course, based on the paper co-authored by the 70 plus investigators’
On November 23, 2022 the lead investigator in the trial, Linda Liau, was invited to make a presentation at a plenary session of the prestigious Society of Neuro-Oncology in which she stated that the trial was successful. SNO is the foremost medical conference for neuro surgeons and others involved in the treatment of glioblastoma. The decision to prominently feature Dr. Liau’s presentation speaks volumes about how many physicians will view these results.
These are very powerful endorsements for the view that DCVax-L holds the promise of extending survival and represents a significant medical advance in the treatment of GBM, a disease in which half of patients die within roughly 16 months of diagnosis and only 5% survive for five years. The phase 3 data shows that DCVax-L added to current standard of care impressively increases survival in ndGBM. Also shown in this trial was that DCVax-L added to SOC is the first therapy ever shown to increase survival in rGBM. Having said that, I must emphasize that while these endorsements give me very strong confidence that DCVax-L will be approved by regulatory agencies, they are not a lock solid guarantee.I believe that F-stein’s argument that the trial failed are clearly false. Let me take on and debunk his primary arguments one at a timeHe makes the serious allegation that Northwest looked at the data from the phase 3 trial in an interim look in 2014 and saw that the trial had failed. This is just wrong. The interim look was conducted by an independent group, the Data Monitoring Committee, and the Company remained blinded until the data lock in October of 2020. Only the DMC and FDA saw the data.
Having falsely concluded that NWBO conclusively knew that the trial had failed, he alleges that the Company changed the endpoint from progression free survival to median overall survival. He is correct that the endpoint was changed, but for very understandable and legitimate reasons. This is explained in an eloquent manner on pages 8 and 9 of the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) that is an integral part of the phase 3 trial. Please refer to this link to the SAP for that comprehensive explanation.
It is completely legitimate for a Company to change the endpoints of a trial if the study remains blinded to the Company which is clearly the case and if the statistical analysis plan is submitted to regulatory agencies prior to data lock and unblinding which is also the case. Again this is explained on pages 8 and 9 of the SAP that I just referred to.
F-Stein repeatedly and falsely claims that progression free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint of the trial. A quick glance at http://ClinTrials.gov shows that PFS was not even a secondary endpoint. See this link. The primary endpoint is clearly stated as mOS in ndGBM and the secondary endpoint is mOS in rGBM. Both endpoints were achieved with strong strong significance. Nevertheless, he repeats and repeats that PFS was the primary endpoint.
I would also point out that PFS which is based on tumor expansion is a surrogate endpoint. Overall survival is the gold standard measure for oncology trials. OS as a data point can’t be manipulated or cherry picked as death is an absolute event. Somehow, F-stein has persuaded himself that determining whether a tumor expands is a better measure of outcome for the trial than how long the patient survives. He makes the curious argument that even though patients are achieving medically meaningful, longer survival with DCVax-L that we should ignore this and focus on tumor expansion which is only an indirect marker of survival to determine if the trial was successful.
The company was forced by the nature of the trial to use external controls. This is the one aspect of the trial which draws the most scrutiny and on which F-stein focused. The most common practice in clinical trials is to compare a group given the drug to a control group not given the drug. Again see the previously cited pages 8 and 9 of the SAP for details on why Northwest chose to use historical controls.
F-stein alleges that the FDA will not accept external controls, but there is strong precedent that the agency will do so. The medically exciting CAR-T drugs Kymriah, Yescarta, Tecartis, Breyanzi, Abcema and Carvytki were all recently approved on the basis of phase 2 trials in which there was no control group and in which their results were referenced to external controls. It is also important to note that they were also approved on the basis of objective response rates (i.e. tumor shrinkage which was not accompanied by any data on duration of effect) rather than the much cleaner, more informative endpoint of survival. I would argue that the FDA would very likely approve DCVax-L as it did the CAR-T drugs without the use of external controls. However, the use of external controls makes for an even stronger argument for approval.
Indeed, there was a time when the FDA was not receptive to external controls in clinical trials, but this has changed. The example of the CAR-T drugs is illustrative. Also, there was an article entitled “External control arms in oncology: current use and future directions” that was published in Annals of Oncology January, 2022 by Dr. Richard Pazdur and 12 colleagues from the FDA. See this liThis article lays out situations in which the use of external controls might be appropriate and the steps companies should take if they wish to use external controls. NWBO believes that its SAP which was developed two years prior to this article closely fits the criteria laid out.
Richard Pazdur, M.D., one of the authors of the Annals paper, is the director of the FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE), which leverages the combined skills of the FDA's regulatory scientists and reviewers with expertise in drugs, biologics and devices to expedite the development of novel cancer products. In his role as director of the OCE, Pazdur is responsible for leading the effort to develop and execute an integrated regulatory approach to enhance the cross-center coordination of oncology product clinical review. He will likely be a key person at the FDA in determining whether DCVax-L is approved.
F-stein References Physicians who Express Skepticism on the Trial Results; Let’s Put This in PerspectiveBefore going further, I want to disassemble the cheap trick F-stein employs in his November 21, 2022 note in finding physicians who are skeptical about the DCVax-L phase 3 study. In his article he cites the opinion of Dr. Chen who is chair of the neurosurgery department at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine and was not involved in the DCVax study.F-stein says he asked Dr. Chen to review the DCVax study published in JAMA Oncology. Dr, Chen also attended the annual meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology (SNO), where the data were presented last Sunday. F-stein claimed that Dr. Chen said: The authors should be congratulated for conducting a study of this magnitude,” but the results are uninterpretable because the analysis was not pre-specified when the study was started in 2007. Importantly, Dr, Chen has no clinical experience with DCVax-L Also, he is in error in stating that the analysis shown in the SAP was not pre-specified.Likewise, F-stein reached out to Dr. Donald O’Rourke, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania, for his opinion of the DCVax study. F-stein states that he also attended the SNO meeting. F-stein reported that Dr. O’Rourke stated via e-mail, a list of confounding issues related to patient enrollment and the conduct of the study that makes him skeptical. He also has no clinical experience with http://DCVax-L.It is more than interesting to note that Dr. Steven Brem is also a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania and is the third physician listed behind the lead investigators on the phase 3 trial, Dr. Linda Liau and Dr. Keyoumers Ashkans, as a co-author of the phase 3 DCVax-L study. He has extensive clinical experience with DCVax-L. In a presentation at SNO on November 20, 2022 he said that the results published in JAMA were extremely exciting. Dr. Brem, who has seen DCVax-L’s effects in his own patients, considers DCVax-L a major http://advance.It is totally to be expected that you can find physicians who are skeptical of this or any study. I re-emphasize that neither of F-stein’s physician references has treated any patients with DCVax-L and neither has had any involvement with DCVax-L clinical programs. In contrast, Drs. Liau, Ashkans and Brem have many years of experience with DCVax-L.F-stein wrote an article during or shortly after the NYAS presentation on May 10, 2022 that falsely stated that the phase 3 trial of DCVax-L failed. This drew an indignant and angry response from Dr. Steven Toms, a board certified neurosurgeon at Rhode Island who participated in the trial and has had very positive experiences with patients he has treated with DCVax-L. He absolutely torched F-stein’s attacks on DCVax-L in a series of tweets that challenge tweets from F-stein and hedge fund employees. This interchange between Dr. Toms and F-stein shines a remarkable light on how F-stein gaslights DCVax-L. Here are the tweets from Dr. Toms.May 11 1:55 PMStevenToms11 Replying to MidwestHedgie and adamfeuerstein and 4 othersAs a neurosurgical oncologist who has spent his career working against this disease and the father of a cancer survivor it is nauseating to see you and your ilk diminish the life’s work of my colleague (Linda Liau) for a quick Buck. The data’s imperfections do not diminish the results.May 11, 2022 8:52 PMStevenToms11No immunotherapy (vaccine or ICB) has worked in GBM as the CNS is immunologically privileged. DCVax has overcome the immunosuppressive environment and is the 2nd clinical trial recently to reach significance in GBM. More to do but a good step forward. (A trial of the TTF medical device Optune developed by Novocure was the first)May 12, 2022 6:30 AMReplying to
@adamfeuerstein
and @MidwestHedgieSo when will MidwestHedgie and adamfeuerstein come look my patients in the eye and tell them they cannot have a therapy with 20+ years of investigation, a $1B clinical trial and backing of the oncology community then I will engage them again. Otherwise it is just noise.May 12, 2022 9:58 AMReplying to adamfeuerstein and MidwestHedgieRepeating your lies do not make them truths. In all of your clinical experience Dr. Feuerstein can you point me to all of your long term survivors who got another therapy and lived this long? Just one that was not IDH1 mutant please. I will wait.May 18, 2022 8:27 amReplying to @adamfeuersteinI see Dr. Feuerstein is back to protect patients from the clinicians who performed the study and actually care for patients with GBM. You have my name and know I am not anonymous so please stop your falsehoods. End points were changed as we began to understand pseudoprogression.May 18, 2022 8:42 AMReplying to adamfeuersteinSuccess against a plague like GBM is not presto! It is a long slog of discovery and many ideas over decades that fail to move the needle on survival. Oncologists will not ignore a scientifically sound nontoxic therapy that addresses multiple tumor antigens and improves survivalMay 19, 2022 7:57 AMReplying to @adamfeuersteinI see the pathological lying about the data continues. Before I head to surgery I was wondering if you had the dignity or data to reply to my earlier challenges to your lies. Waiting for a cogent response to why anyone would care about PFS in immune therapyMay 26, 2022 12:53 PMReplying to
@Hygro10
and @adamfeuersteinGBMs do not live more than 5 years other than those treated with DCVax or TTF. I have patients 5+ year survival treated on both protocols. I have zero long term survivors in 25 years of practice without. Do the math. The p value is highly significant.May 27, 2022 2:08 PMToms11Steven@Hygro10 and @adamfeuersteinJust emailed by Communications office at my university that a Mr. Feuerstein has emailed them to inquire about the veracity of this handle. If you think you can intimidate me or that I will remain silent while you impugn this work you are sadly incorrect.This last tweet from Dr, Toms is beyond alarming. F-stein has been accused of trying to intimidate doctors who speak positively on DCVax-L. This would be consistent with allegations on Twitter that F-stein intimidated Linda Liau and UCLA to prevent her from giving the presentation at NYAS. She was originally scheduled to do so, but unexpectedly cancelled. He is also alleged to have tried unsuccessfully to convince the New York Academy of Sciences to drop the presentation. This caused them to ban F-stein from attending the conference. How Stat News can support this behavior is not understandable to me.If you stop now, you can generally understand why I believe that F-stein’s arguments are without any merit. Let me now go on to discuss in more detail, the reasons why I believe that the F-stein position is demonstrably false.Investigators in the Phase 3 Study Believe That DCVax-L Is a Major AdvanceF-stein’s allegations put him in the curious position of challenging the credibility and integrity of the two lead investigators in the trial, both of whom believe that DCVax-L meaningfully extends survival in patients they have treated with DCVax-L. They are:Dr. Linda Liau is the lead investigator in the US. She is Chair of the Department of Neurosurgery at UCLA, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and Director, Brain Tumor Program, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. She was formerly Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuro-Oncology. Her research efforts are focused on the molecular biology of brain tumors, gene therapy, immunotherapy, and brain cancer vaccines. Dr. Liau is a highly respected neuro-surgeon.Dr. Keyoumers Ashkan is the chief investigator for the European segment of the phase 3 DCVax-L trial. He is the clinical lead for neuro-oncology at King's College Hospital in the UK. He has an active research interest in brain tumors and movement disorders and heads the Neuroscience Clinical Trial Unit. Dr. Ashkan is one of the most respected neurosurgeons in the UK and Kings College is the premier teaching hospital in the UK.Both of these physicians have impeccable credentials and also many years of hands on hands on experience with DCVax-L not only in the phase 3 trial, but also in patients receiving DCVax-L in compassionate use. In addition, there were 70 physicians who participated in the phase 3 trial have signed as co-authors who support the JAMA Oncology paper..New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) Conference Highlights DCVax-LThe NYAS proudly states that for over 200 years, it has brought together extraordinary people working at the frontiers of discovery. It has become an important and widely-respected contributor to the international scientific community. To drive scientific progress, the Academy hosts over 150 conferences and symposia annually, connecting experts across sectors, disciplines, and national boundaries. Research presented at the Academy is disseminated globally via in-person and virtual events, the prestigious Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, and a broad array of digital http://media.At the May 10, 2022 meeting of the NYAS, topline data from the completed phase 3 trial of DCVax-L was selected for presentation. Promising, blinded interim data had previously been reported but this was the first time that the final topline data was presented. NYAS editors first reviewed that data and after concluding that this was an important study then asked external experts to peer review the trial. This was a rigorous process intended to establish the accuracy and credibility of the study.The study was presented by Dr. Mulholland, an investigator in the phase 3 trial. Representing the other 70 plus physicians in the trial, he stated that the trial had successfully met the primary endpoint of median overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma with a highly significant p value of <0.002. It was also successful in reaching the secondary endpoint of median overall survival in recurrent GBM with a p value of <0.001. He believes that DCVax-L is a major advance in the treatment of both ndGBM and rGBM.JAMA Oncology, A Publication of the American Medical Association Publishes Peer Reviewed Article on Phase 3 StudyIn a November 17, 2022 edition of JAMA Oncology, a peer reviewed article was published that concurred with Dr. Liau, Dr. Ashkans and 70 other investigators in the study along with the NYAS that the trial had successfully reached the primary endpoint of mOS in ndGBM and secondary endpoint of mOS in rGBM. This is the most powerful validation of the results that we can hope for. I describe the internal and external experts that looked at all aspects of the clinical data and the statistical analysis used to interpret it. I describe this in detail in my recent article. See this link.Linda Liau Presents Phase 3 Results at the Society of Neuro-OncologyOn November 23, 2022, the lead investigator in the trial, Linda Liau, was invited to make a presentation at a plenary session of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in which she stated that the trial was successful. SNO is the foremost medical conference for neuro surgeons and others involved in the treatment of glioblastoma. Needless to say, this plenary presentation is another powerful endorsement of the hypothesis that DCVax-L is a significant advance in the treatment of http://glioblastoma.Now Let’s Look at F-stein.F-stein has no scientific background but boasts a degree in political science. Let me ask you a question? If F-stein is trying to convince you that DCVax-L has no chance of being effective in GBM, wouldn’t you expect him to have a good understanding of the biological basis for the product, its mechanism of action and how it is manufactured (this is especially the case for a living cell product)? Of course you would. Failing this, everything else he says is meaningless or highly questionable. On June 20, 2022 I wrote an article entitled Adam Feuerstein Investigates Adam Feuerstein’s Understanding of Dendritic Cell Vaccines. See this http://link.In searching through the plethora of articles he has written on Northwest Biotherapeutics, I was unable to find anything remotely resembling an in-depth analysis of dendritic cell vaccines or DCVax-L. So to get some insight into F-stein’s thinking (sic), I had to turns to bits and pieces of comments he made on Twitter, Investors Hub, Seeking Alpha and http://TheStreet.com. Essentially, I have used Adam Feuerstein to investigate Adam Feuerstein. With his help I conclude, and I am confident that you will agree, that Adam Feuerstein is riding a jackass through the streets of biotechnology with no clothes muttering inanities about Northwest and the sophisticated technology underlying DCVax-L.After reading this linked article, I think you will concur that F-stein is utterly clueless on understanding the technology. So how does he come up with his articles? Who does he depend on? F-stein hasn’t shared his sources with us. However, he has expressed great admiration for certain hedge funds. A September 27, 2014 article was published in the Washington Post entitled Northwest Biotherapeutics stock woes highlight the harm of short sales executed by hedge funds. See this link. This article suggests a link between F-stein and short selling. I have no way of knowing if the Washington Post article is accurate and I am not alleging collusion, but this article is in the public record and investors can draw their own conclusions.Turning to Two Superficial Articles Written by Adam Feuerstein and Published by Stat NewsF-stein wrote an article on May 10, 2022 that was published in Stat News during or shortly after the NYAS presentation in which he falsely stated that the trial had failed to reach the primary endpoint which he falsely stated was progression free survival instead of median overall survival. I wrote a refutation of that article entitled Debunking Silly, Fictitious Adam Feuerstein Article Falsely Claiming Phase 3 Trial of DCVax-L in Glioblastoma Multiforme Was a Failure. Here is the link.On November 21, F-stein published a second article. This was essentially a rehash of the May 10 article so I won’t bother to refute it.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/media/1361671/dl?inline (doj complaint)
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-89.pdf. (sec complaint)
"Prominent Short Seller Made Millions Off Bait-and-Switch Scheme, U.S. Says
Federal authorities filed charges against Andrew Left, founder of Citron Research, who they said made at least $16 million from a multiyear scheme to manipulate market prices."
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/business/andrew-left-short-seller-fraud.html
ae kusterer
2 hours ago
The DOJ indicted Andrew Left today based in part on the first quote below. In the second quote , Larry Smith describes Adam Feuerstain's 5/10/22 short attack on $nwbo that sent the stock from $2.10 the day before to $0.38 on the 10th. Like Left , on 5/10/22, Feuerstein could have coordinated the release of his short report that day on the dc vax l trial released also on 5/10/22 with many hedge funds . Let's recall that the trade volume on 5/10/22 was 77 million shares, up appreciably from average daily volume of 1.5 million shares.
https://nytimes.com/2024/07/26/business/andrew-left-short-seller-fraud.html
https://justice.gov/usao-cdca/media/1361671/dl?inline (doj complaint)
https://sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-89.pdf. (sec complaint)
"Defendant LEFT coordinated with hedge funds to disseminate short reports and information to be posted on Twitter, coordinated with hedge funds regarding the timing of publication, and enabled the hedge funds to trade in the Targeted Securities before the reports were disseminated. In exchange for sharing his planned announcements with the hedge funds in advance of posting them publicly, the hedge funds paid defendant LEFT a portion of their trading profits."
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174819848
F-stein wrote an article during or shortly after the NYAS presentation on May 10, 2022 that falsely stated that the phase 3 trial of DCVax-L failed. This drew an indignant and angry response from Dr. Steven Toms, a board certified neurosurgeon at Rhode Island who participated in the trial and has had very positive experiences with patients he has treated with DCVax-L. He absolutely torched F-stein’s attacks on DCVax-L in a series of tweets that challenge tweets from F-stein and hedge fund employees. This interchange between Dr. Toms and F-stein shines a remarkable light on how F-stein gaslights DCVax-L. Here are the tweets from Dr. Toms.
https://smithonstocks.com/explanation-of-how-adam-feuerstein-has-egregiously-misrepresented-the-results-of-the-phase-3-trial-of-dcvax-l/
Explanation of How Adam Feuerstein Has Egregiously Misrepresented the Results of the Phase 3 Trial of DCVax-L
POSTED by LARRY SMITH on NOV 22, 2022 • (0)
Tagged as DCVax-L phase 3 trial, Refuting Adam Feuerstein's misrepresentation that DCVax-L phase 3 Trial failed + Categorized as Company Reports, LinkedInExecutive SummaryI have tried to make this report as short and readable as possible so that in many cases I provide links to a previous article I have written or other pertinent data, rather than recreating the information in this report. So, you will find lots of links. The intent is to give the reader my conclusions in short form in this executive summary, but also to provide access to in-depth information for those seeking more detail.Adam Feuerstein and his employer, Stat News, continue to falsely allege that the phase 3 trial of DCVax-L failed. This is a jaw dropping accusation given that:The 70 plus investigators who participated in the trial co-authored a paper describing the phase 3 trial and its results and concluding that the trial had successfully reached its primary endpoint of median overall survival (mOS) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (ndGBM) and the secondary endpoint of mOS in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM).
The prestigious New York Academy of Science featured a presentation at its conference on May 10, 2022 in which the presenter unequivocally stated that the trial successfully reached its primary and secondary endpoints. This was the first time that unblinded topline data from the trial was made public.
On November 17, 2022 JAMA Oncology, a Journal of the American Medical Association publication, printed a peer reviewed article clearly stating that the trial successfully reached its endpoints. This was, of course, based on the paper co-authored by the 70 plus investigators’
On November 23, 2022 the lead investigator in the trial, Linda Liau, was invited to make a presentation at a plenary session of the prestigious Society of Neuro-Oncology in which she stated that the trial was successful. SNO is the foremost medical conference for neuro surgeons and others involved in the treatment of glioblastoma. The decision to prominently feature Dr. Liau’s presentation speaks volumes about how many physicians will view these results.
These are very powerful endorsements for the view that DCVax-L holds the promise of extending survival and represents a significant medical advance in the treatment of GBM, a disease in which half of patients die within roughly 16 months of diagnosis and only 5% survive for five years. The phase 3 data shows that DCVax-L added to current standard of care impressively increases survival in ndGBM. Also shown in this trial was that DCVax-L added to SOC is the first therapy ever shown to increase survival in rGBM. Having said that, I must emphasize that while these endorsements give me very strong confidence that DCVax-L will be approved by regulatory agencies, they are not a lock solid guarantee.I believe that F-stein’s argument that the trial failed are clearly false. Let me take on and debunk his primary arguments one at a timeHe makes the serious allegation that Northwest looked at the data from the phase 3 trial in an interim look in 2014 and saw that the trial had failed. This is just wrong. The interim look was conducted by an independent group, the Data Monitoring Committee, and the Company remained blinded until the data lock in October of 2020. Only the DMC and FDA saw the data.
Having falsely concluded that NWBO conclusively knew that the trial had failed, he alleges that the Company changed the endpoint from progression free survival to median overall survival. He is correct that the endpoint was changed, but for very understandable and legitimate reasons. This is explained in an eloquent manner on pages 8 and 9 of the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) that is an integral part of the phase 3 trial. Please refer to this link to the SAP for that comprehensive explanation.
It is completely legitimate for a Company to change the endpoints of a trial if the study remains blinded to the Company which is clearly the case and if the statistical analysis plan is submitted to regulatory agencies prior to data lock and unblinding which is also the case. Again this is explained on pages 8 and 9 of the SAP that I just referred to.
F-Stein repeatedly and falsely claims that progression free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint of the trial. A quick glance at http://ClinTrials.gov shows that PFS was not even a secondary endpoint. See this link. The primary endpoint is clearly stated as mOS in ndGBM and the secondary endpoint is mOS in rGBM. Both endpoints were achieved with strong strong significance. Nevertheless, he repeats and repeats that PFS was the primary endpoint.
I would also point out that PFS which is based on tumor expansion is a surrogate endpoint. Overall survival is the gold standard measure for oncology trials. OS as a data point can’t be manipulated or cherry picked as death is an absolute event. Somehow, F-stein has persuaded himself that determining whether a tumor expands is a better measure of outcome for the trial than how long the patient survives. He makes the curious argument that even though patients are achieving medically meaningful, longer survival with DCVax-L that we should ignore this and focus on tumor expansion which is only an indirect marker of survival to determine if the trial was successful.
The company was forced by the nature of the trial to use external controls. This is the one aspect of the trial which draws the most scrutiny and on which F-stein focused. The most common practice in clinical trials is to compare a group given the drug to a control group not given the drug. Again see the previously cited pages 8 and 9 of the SAP for details on why Northwest chose to use historical controls.
F-stein alleges that the FDA will not accept external controls, but there is strong precedent that the agency will do so. The medically exciting CAR-T drugs Kymriah, Yescarta, Tecartis, Breyanzi, Abcema and Carvytki were all recently approved on the basis of phase 2 trials in which there was no control group and in which their results were referenced to external controls. It is also important to note that they were also approved on the basis of objective response rates (i.e. tumor shrinkage which was not accompanied by any data on duration of effect) rather than the much cleaner, more informative endpoint of survival. I would argue that the FDA would very likely approve DCVax-L as it did the CAR-T drugs without the use of external controls. However, the use of external controls makes for an even stronger argument for approval.
Indeed, there was a time when the FDA was not receptive to external controls in clinical trials, but this has changed. The example of the CAR-T drugs is illustrative. Also, there was an article entitled “External control arms in oncology: current use and future directions” that was published in Annals of Oncology January, 2022 by Dr. Richard Pazdur and 12 colleagues from the FDA. See this liThis article lays out situations in which the use of external controls might be appropriate and the steps companies should take if they wish to use external controls. NWBO believes that its SAP which was developed two years prior to this article closely fits the criteria laid out.
Richard Pazdur, M.D., one of the authors of the Annals paper, is the director of the FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE), which leverages the combined skills of the FDA's regulatory scientists and reviewers with expertise in drugs, biologics and devices to expedite the development of novel cancer products. In his role as director of the OCE, Pazdur is responsible for leading the effort to develop and execute an integrated regulatory approach to enhance the cross-center coordination of oncology product clinical review. He will likely be a key person at the FDA in determining whether DCVax-L is approved.
F-stein References Physicians who Express Skepticism on the Trial Results; Let’s Put This in PerspectiveBefore going further, I want to disassemble the cheap trick F-stein employs in his November 21, 2022 note in finding physicians who are skeptical about the DCVax-L phase 3 study. In his article he cites the opinion of Dr. Chen who is chair of the neurosurgery department at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine and was not involved in the DCVax study.F-stein says he asked Dr. Chen to review the DCVax study published in JAMA Oncology. Dr, Chen also attended the annual meeting of the Society of Neuro-Oncology (SNO), where the data were presented last Sunday. F-stein claimed that Dr. Chen said: The authors should be congratulated for conducting a study of this magnitude,” but the results are uninterpretable because the analysis was not pre-specified when the study was started in 2007. Importantly, Dr, Chen has no clinical experience with DCVax-L Also, he is in error in stating that the analysis shown in the SAP was not pre-specified.Likewise, F-stein reached out to Dr. Donald O’Rourke, a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania, for his opinion of the DCVax study. F-stein states that he also attended the SNO meeting. F-stein reported that Dr. O’Rourke stated via e-mail, a list of confounding issues related to patient enrollment and the conduct of the study that makes him skeptical. He also has no clinical experience with http://DCVax-L.It is more than interesting to note that Dr. Steven Brem is also a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania and is the third physician listed behind the lead investigators on the phase 3 trial, Dr. Linda Liau and Dr. Keyoumers Ashkans, as a co-author of the phase 3 DCVax-L study. He has extensive clinical experience with DCVax-L. In a presentation at SNO on November 20, 2022 he said that the results published in JAMA were extremely exciting. Dr. Brem, who has seen DCVax-L’s effects in his own patients, considers DCVax-L a major http://advance.It is totally to be expected that you can find physicians who are skeptical of this or any study. I re-emphasize that neither of F-stein’s physician references has treated any patients with DCVax-L and neither has had any involvement with DCVax-L clinical programs. In contrast, Drs. Liau, Ashkans and Brem have many years of experience with DCVax-L.F-stein wrote an article during or shortly after the NYAS presentation on May 10, 2022 that falsely stated that the phase 3 trial of DCVax-L failed. This drew an indignant and angry response from Dr. Steven Toms, a board certified neurosurgeon at Rhode Island who participated in the trial and has had very positive experiences with patients he has treated with DCVax-L. He absolutely torched F-stein’s attacks on DCVax-L in a series of tweets that challenge tweets from F-stein and hedge fund employees. This interchange between Dr. Toms and F-stein shines a remarkable light on how F-stein gaslights DCVax-L. Here are the tweets from Dr. Toms.May 11 1:55 PMStevenToms11 Replying to MidwestHedgie and adamfeuerstein and 4 othersAs a neurosurgical oncologist who has spent his career working against this disease and the father of a cancer survivor it is nauseating to see you and your ilk diminish the life’s work of my colleague (Linda Liau) for a quick Buck. The data’s imperfections do not diminish the results.May 11, 2022 8:52 PMStevenToms11No immunotherapy (vaccine or ICB) has worked in GBM as the CNS is immunologically privileged. DCVax has overcome the immunosuppressive environment and is the 2nd clinical trial recently to reach significance in GBM. More to do but a good step forward. (A trial of the TTF medical device Optune developed by Novocure was the first)May 12, 2022 6:30 AMReplying to
@adamfeuerstein
and @MidwestHedgieSo when will MidwestHedgie and adamfeuerstein come look my patients in the eye and tell them they cannot have a therapy with 20+ years of investigation, a $1B clinical trial and backing of the oncology community then I will engage them again. Otherwise it is just noise.May 12, 2022 9:58 AMReplying to adamfeuerstein and MidwestHedgieRepeating your lies do not make them truths. In all of your clinical experience Dr. Feuerstein can you point me to all of your long term survivors who got another therapy and lived this long? Just one that was not IDH1 mutant please. I will wait.May 18, 2022 8:27 amReplying to @adamfeuersteinI see Dr. Feuerstein is back to protect patients from the clinicians who performed the study and actually care for patients with GBM. You have my name and know I am not anonymous so please stop your falsehoods. End points were changed as we began to understand pseudoprogression.May 18, 2022 8:42 AMReplying to adamfeuersteinSuccess against a plague like GBM is not presto! It is a long slog of discovery and many ideas over decades that fail to move the needle on survival. Oncologists will not ignore a scientifically sound nontoxic therapy that addresses multiple tumor antigens and improves survivalMay 19, 2022 7:57 AMReplying to @adamfeuersteinI see the pathological lying about the data continues. Before I head to surgery I was wondering if you had the dignity or data to reply to my earlier challenges to your lies. Waiting for a cogent response to why anyone would care about PFS in immune therapyMay 26, 2022 12:53 PMReplying to
@Hygro10
and @adamfeuersteinGBMs do not live more than 5 years other than those treated with DCVax or TTF. I have patients 5+ year survival treated on both protocols. I have zero long term survivors in 25 years of practice without. Do the math. The p value is highly significant.May 27, 2022 2:08 PMToms11Steven@Hygro10 and @adamfeuersteinJust emailed by Communications office at my university that a Mr. Feuerstein has emailed them to inquire about the veracity of this handle. If you think you can intimidate me or that I will remain silent while you impugn this work you are sadly incorrect.This last tweet from Dr, Toms is beyond alarming. F-stein has been accused of trying to intimidate doctors who speak positively on DCVax-L. This would be consistent with allegations on Twitter that F-stein intimidated Linda Liau and UCLA to prevent her from giving the presentation at NYAS. She was originally scheduled to do so, but unexpectedly cancelled. He is also alleged to have tried unsuccessfully to convince the New York Academy of Sciences to drop the presentation. This caused them to ban F-stein from attending the conference. How Stat News can support this behavior is not understandable to me.If you stop now, you can generally understand why I believe that F-stein’s arguments are without any merit. Let me now go on to discuss in more detail, the reasons why I believe that the F-stein position is demonstrably false.Investigators in the Phase 3 Study Believe That DCVax-L Is a Major AdvanceF-stein’s allegations put him in the curious position of challenging the credibility and integrity of the two lead investigators in the trial, both of whom believe that DCVax-L meaningfully extends survival in patients they have treated with DCVax-L. They are:Dr. Linda Liau is the lead investigator in the US. She is Chair of the Department of Neurosurgery at UCLA, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and Director, Brain Tumor Program, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. She was formerly Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neuro-Oncology. Her research efforts are focused on the molecular biology of brain tumors, gene therapy, immunotherapy, and brain cancer vaccines. Dr. Liau is a highly respected neuro-surgeon.Dr. Keyoumers Ashkan is the chief investigator for the European segment of the phase 3 DCVax-L trial. He is the clinical lead for neuro-oncology at King's College Hospital in the UK. He has an active research interest in brain tumors and movement disorders and heads the Neuroscience Clinical Trial Unit. Dr. Ashkan is one of the most respected neurosurgeons in the UK and Kings College is the premier teaching hospital in the UK.Both of these physicians have impeccable credentials and also many years of hands on hands on experience with DCVax-L not only in the phase 3 trial, but also in patients receiving DCVax-L in compassionate use. In addition, there were 70 physicians who participated in the phase 3 trial have signed as co-authors who support the JAMA Oncology paper..New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) Conference Highlights DCVax-LThe NYAS proudly states that for over 200 years, it has brought together extraordinary people working at the frontiers of discovery. It has become an important and widely-respected contributor to the international scientific community. To drive scientific progress, the Academy hosts over 150 conferences and symposia annually, connecting experts across sectors, disciplines, and national boundaries. Research presented at the Academy is disseminated globally via in-person and virtual events, the prestigious Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, and a broad array of digital http://media.At the May 10, 2022 meeting of the NYAS, topline data from the completed phase 3 trial of DCVax-L was selected for presentation. Promising, blinded interim data had previously been reported but this was the first time that the final topline data was presented. NYAS editors first reviewed that data and after concluding that this was an important study then asked external experts to peer review the trial. This was a rigorous process intended to establish the accuracy and credibility of the study.The study was presented by Dr. Mulholland, an investigator in the phase 3 trial. Representing the other 70 plus physicians in the trial, he stated that the trial had successfully met the primary endpoint of median overall survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma with a highly significant p value of <0.002. It was also successful in reaching the secondary endpoint of median overall survival in recurrent GBM with a p value of <0.001. He believes that DCVax-L is a major advance in the treatment of both ndGBM and rGBM.JAMA Oncology, A Publication of the American Medical Association Publishes Peer Reviewed Article on Phase 3 StudyIn a November 17, 2022 edition of JAMA Oncology, a peer reviewed article was published that concurred with Dr. Liau, Dr. Ashkans and 70 other investigators in the study along with the NYAS that the trial had successfully reached the primary endpoint of mOS in ndGBM and secondary endpoint of mOS in rGBM. This is the most powerful validation of the results that we can hope for. I describe the internal and external experts that looked at all aspects of the clinical data and the statistical analysis used to interpret it. I describe this in detail in my recent article. See this link.Linda Liau Presents Phase 3 Results at the Society of Neuro-OncologyOn November 23, 2022, the lead investigator in the trial, Linda Liau, was invited to make a presentation at a plenary session of the Society of Neuro-Oncology in which she stated that the trial was successful. SNO is the foremost medical conference for neuro surgeons and others involved in the treatment of glioblastoma. Needless to say, this plenary presentation is another powerful endorsement of the hypothesis that DCVax-L is a significant advance in the treatment of http://glioblastoma.Now Let’s Look at F-stein.F-stein has no scientific background but boasts a degree in political science. Let me ask you a question? If F-stein is trying to convince you that DCVax-L has no chance of being effective in GBM, wouldn’t you expect him to have a good understanding of the biological basis for the product, its mechanism of action and how it is manufactured (this is especially the case for a living cell product)? Of course you would. Failing this, everything else he says is meaningless or highly questionable. On June 20, 2022 I wrote an article entitled Adam Feuerstein Investigates Adam Feuerstein’s Understanding of Dendritic Cell Vaccines. See this http://link.In searching through the plethora of articles he has written on Northwest Biotherapeutics, I was unable to find anything remotely resembling an in-depth analysis of dendritic cell vaccines or DCVax-L. So to get some insight into F-stein’s thinking (sic), I had to turns to bits and pieces of comments he made on Twitter, Investors Hub, Seeking Alpha and http://TheStreet.com. Essentially, I have used Adam Feuerstein to investigate Adam Feuerstein. With his help I conclude, and I am confident that you will agree, that Adam Feuerstein is riding a jackass through the streets of biotechnology with no clothes muttering inanities about Northwest and the sophisticated technology underlying DCVax-L.After reading this linked article, I think you will concur that F-stein is utterly clueless on understanding the technology. So how does he come up with his articles? Who does he depend on? F-stein hasn’t shared his sources with us. However, he has expressed great admiration for certain hedge funds. A September 27, 2014 article was published in the Washington Post entitled Northwest Biotherapeutics stock woes highlight the harm of short sales executed by hedge funds. See this link. This article suggests a link between F-stein and short selling. I have no way of knowing if the Washington Post article is accurate and I am not alleging collusion, but this article is in the public record and investors can draw their own conclusions.Turning to Two Superficial Articles Written by Adam Feuerstein and Published by Stat NewsF-stein wrote an article on May 10, 2022 that was published in Stat News during or shortly after the NYAS presentation in which he falsely stated that the trial had failed to reach the primary endpoint which he falsely stated was progression free survival instead of median overall survival. I wrote a refutation of that article entitled Debunking Silly, Fictitious Adam Feuerstein Article Falsely Claiming Phase 3 Trial of DCVax-L in Glioblastoma Multiforme Was a Failure. Here is the link.On November 21, F-stein published a second article. This was essentially a rehash of the May 10 article so I won’t bother to refute it.
Comment
You must be logged in, or you must subscribe to post a comment.
Last edited
9:51 PM · Jul 26, 2024
·
27
Views
View post engagements
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/business/andrew-left-short-seller-fraud.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/media/1361671/dl?inline (doj complaint)
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-89.pdf. (sec complaint)
Prominent Short Seller Made Millions Off Bait-and-Switch Scheme, U.S. Says
Federal authorities filed charges against Andrew Left, founder of Citron Research, who they said made at least $16 million from a multiyear scheme to manipulate market prices.
$nwbo
@alphavestcap
@smithonstocks
@hoffmann6383
@brianegolf2
@ATLnsider
ae kusterer
3 hours ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/business/andrew-left-short-seller-fraud.html
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/media/1361671/dl?inline (doj complaint)
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2024/comp-pr2024-89.pdf. (sec complaint)
Prominent Short Seller Made Millions Off Bait-and-Switch Scheme, U.S. Says
Federal authorities filed charges against Andrew Left, founder of Citron Research, who they said made at least $16 million from a multiyear scheme to manipulate market prices.
Listen to this article · 5:01 min Learn more
Share full article
Andrew Left leaning against a wall, with one hand in his pants pocket.
Andrew Left, founder of Citron Research, could be sentenced to 25 years or more in a federal prison if convicted.Credit...James Jackman/Bloomberg
Matthew Goldstein
By Matthew Goldstein
July 26, 2024
Updated 2:11 p.m. ET
Federal prosecutors and securities regulators filed criminal and civil fraud charges against a well-known investor who frequently appeared on cable TV business shows to discuss his often bearish views on stocks, the authorities said on Friday.
They accused the investor, Andrew Left, of raking in at least $16 million in illegal profits from a multiyear scheme to manipulate market prices of roughly two dozen stocks on which his firm, Citron Research, had published reports. He is charged with illegally profiting through stock trades he made that were contrary to the public recommendations he was making to investors.
The authorities in Los Angeles said Mr. Left essentially used a bait-and-switch strategy that was at odds with his Wall Street reputation of being a vocal short seller, with supposedly long-held negative views of the stocks on which he published critical reports.
The charging documents said Mr. Left, 54, used his high profile on Wall Street to make quick profits from big price changes in a stock and misled investors by making them believe his economic interests were aligned with what he said in his reports.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Short sellers seek to profit from the decline in a stock’s price. Many prefer to not be so public with their views. But Mr. Left was one of the first of a new breed of short sellers to aggressively promote his bearish opinions. A 2017 profile on Mr. Left in The New York Times Magazine compared him to a journalist smoking out corporate fraud.
Mr. Left was one of the short sellers who lost money in the 2021 battle with individual investors who helped drive up the share price of GameStop and created the meme stock craze of buying stocks like mad regardless of their financial fundamentals.
The authorities said Mr. Left would give the public a false impression, through his research reports, social media and TV appearances, that he had long-term negative positions on a stock when he was really seeking to quickly profit from a sharp decline in it. They also accused him of sometimes quickly selling a stock after publishing a positive report on it.
James Spertus, a lawyer for Mr. Left, said the charges against his client “threaten the integrity of the securities markets” because federal authorities are not claiming that Mr. Left published false information about any stocks.
“The fact that Mr. Left trades in the securities he researches and writes about is well known to everyone, and there is no rule or law requiring a publisher who discloses that he is trading to also publish his private trading intentions.”
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Kate Zoladz, director of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s regional office in Los Angeles, said in a news release that Mr. Left took advantage of the trust that his followers on Wall Street had in him and would encourage them to “trade on false pretenses so that he could quickly reverse direction and profit from the price moves following his reports.”
The criminal and civil charges against Mr. Left stem from a more than two-year investigation that had taken a broad look at other so-called activist short sellers — investors who publish critical research reports on stocks.
Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles did not file charges against any other short sellers.
But in the indictment filed against Mr. Left, the authorities said he had provided some hedge funds with advance notice of his reports so those firms could make trades in anticipation of a stock’s moving on the release of a report. The indictment said Mr. Left was provided compensation by at least one hedge fund.
The authorities said Mr. Left misled investors by stating his reports were the results of his own independent research and were not shared with any other investors before publication.
The indictment did not identify any hedge funds that might have coordinated their efforts with Mr. Left. But in the S.E.C.’s civil complaint, regulators said Mr. Left had received compensation from Anson Funds, a Dallas-based hedge fund, in connection with critical reports on two stocks.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
In June, the S.E.C. reached a civil settlement with Anson over charges that it had made misleading disclosures about its work with unnamed activist short-selling firms. A representative for Anson declined to comment.
Mr. Left, whose firm was based in Beverly Hills, Calif., but who now lives in Boca Raton, Fla., is expected to be arraigned on the criminal charges in the next few weeks, said a spokesman for Martin Estrada, the U.S. attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles.
In all, Mr. Left is charged with 17 counts of securities fraud and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. If convicted, he could be sentenced to 25 years or more in a federal prison.
This is not the first time Mr. Left has run afoul of the authorities. In 2015, he was barred from trading in Hong Kong after securities regulators there took issue with one of Citron’s reports.
Matthew Goldstein covers Wall Street and white-collar crime and housing issues. More about Matthew Goldstein
Share full article
Regulators are looking into whether short sellers improperly influenced stock prices.
Prominent short sellers including Carson Block and Andrew Left are said to have received search warrants as part of an ongoing investigation into possible manipulation of stock prices.
Share full article
Carson Block, the founder of Muddy Waters Research, was the subject of a search warrant.Credit...Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters
Matthew GoldsteinEmily Flitter
By Matthew Goldstein and Emily Flitter
Feb. 16, 2022
Some Wall Street investors have made a profession out of exposing companies with shoddy or even fraudulent operations while betting that their share prices will fall. But Justice Department officials have been looking into whether some of these activist investors, known as short sellers, may be taking their tactics too far.
Prominent short sellers including Carson Block and Andrew Left have received search warrants as part of an ongoing investigation into possible manipulation of stock prices, according to two people familiar with the investigation. Details of the investigation were reported earlier by Bloomberg News and The Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Block, the founder of Muddy Waters Research, was served with a search warrant in the fall, according to one person familiar with the investigation. A second person familiar with the investigation said Mr. Left, who runs Citron Research, also had records seized under a search warrant early last year. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details of the investigation were not public.
Subpoenas issued to several investors as part of the inquiry have asked about the sharing of information between activists betting against companies, according to two people familiar with the matter.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Subpoenas can be routine requests for information, but search warrants are a sign of a deeper inquiry. They are more specific and frequently involve the seizure of documents and equipment.
Mr. Left declined to comment on Wednesday. He told Bloomberg this month that he was cooperating and had “full faith in the system.” Lawyers for Mr. Block’s firm had no immediate comment.
A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is leading the investigation, declined to comment. A Securities and Exchange Commission spokesman also declined to comment.
Short selling involves betting that a company’s share price will fall: Investors borrow shares of a company and sell them with the plan to repurchase shares later at a lower price and return them to the lender. Then they pocket the difference.
It is a fairly common practice on Wall Street, and some short sellers will also publish research critical of a company’s operations as part of their bets. Reports distributed by short sellers have prompted regulators to look into companies including the electric-vehicle manufacturers Nikola and Lordstown Motors and the sports betting site DraftKings. William A. Ackman, the billionaire behind Pershing Square Capital Management, famously squared off against two other billionaires — Daniel S. Loeb and Carl C. Icahn — over the dietary supplement maker Herbalife a decade ago.
ADVERTISEMENT
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
But short selling can also be risky. Last year, investors who had bet against shares of the video-game retailer GameStop were caught in a so-called short squeeze when a large number of retail investors bought shares of the company, pushing up its stock price. The squeeze left short sellers with heavy losses; one hedge fund, Melvin Capital, needed a $2 billion infusion from investors after its bet imploded.
Selling Short
Wall Street’s Most Reviled Investors Worry About Their Fate
Feb. 8, 2021
A Skeptical Stock Analyst Wins Big by Seeking Out Frauds
Aug. 16, 2021
Are Activist Short Sellers Misunderstood?
Feb. 12, 2022
NEW
More to Discover
Expand to see more
A 1-year-old daughter of one of the women was sitting in the back of a nearby car at the time of the shooting but was unharmed, according to the police.
NYREGION
Two Women Killed in Upper East Side Murder-Suicide
Donald Trump’s use of his “You’re fired” tagline at a rally didn’t impress Stephen Colbert: “That’s a 10-year-old reference!”
ARTS
Stephen Colbert Mocks Trump for Recycling His Old Insults
Secret Service agents waiting for President Biden at an airport in Las Vegas this month. The Secret Service currently looks after 36 protectees.
BUSINESS
With Long Hours and a No-Fail Mission, the Secret Service Tries to Make Do
More in Business
Secret Service agents waiting for President Biden at an airport in Las Vegas this month. The Secret Service currently looks after 36 protectees.
BUSINESS
With Long Hours and a No-Fail Mission, the Secret Service Tries to Make Do
SAVE FOR LATER
Try Something Different
A 1-year-old daughter of one of the women was sitting in the back of a nearby car at the time of the shooting but was unharmed, according to the police.
Dakota Santiago for The New York Times
NYREGION
Two Women Killed in Upper East Side Murder-Suicide
SAVE FOR LATER
Donald Trump’s use of his “You’re fired” tagline at a rally didn’t impress Stephen Colbert: “That’s a 10-year-old reference!”
CBS
ARTS
Stephen Colbert Mocks Trump for Recycling His Old Insults
SAVE FOR LATER
Illustration by Nicolás Ortega; Photograph by Getty Images
WELL
Slow Down if You See These Dating ‘Yellow Flags’
SAVE FOR LATER
Melon that needs a flavor boost can be prepared many ways, including chaat.
Christopher Simpson for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Simon Andrews. Prop Stylist: Paige Hicks.
DINING
The One Thing Watermelon Experts Do to Pick Sweet Ones
SAVE FOR LATER
Editors Picks
WELL
How Healthy Is Sweet Corn?
SAVE FOR LATER
For more stories, return to home.
Matthew Goldstein covers Wall Street and white collar crime and housing issues. More about Matthew Goldstein
Emily Flitter covers banking and Wall Street. Before joining The Times in 2017, she spent eight years at Reuters, writing about politics, financial crimes and the environment. More about Emily Flitter
See more on: Securities and Exchange Commission, Carl C. Icahn
Share full article
Inside the Biden Administration
Here’s the latest news and analysis from Washington.
Regulating a Dangerous Chemical: The Biden-Harris administration said that it was taking its first steps toward potentially regulating vinyl chloride, a versatile yet cancerous and flammable chemical used widely to make plastic for PVC pipes and packaging.
News
Market Data
Customized watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, OTC Markets Small-Cap, LSE and more.
learningcurve2020
2 hours ago
tryn2
2 hours ago
RobotDroid
4 hours ago
flipper44
5 hours ago
martyDg
6 hours ago
