Travers

[Travers @TraversLL]

@tweet_tj Let's count again aftrt June Opex. I really fear the Korean getting margin called again.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Mashimaro77 Yeah, cow booba meat, it's tender. I tried it first in all-you-can-eat BBQ in Vientiane.

[Jesse Livermore @Jesse_Livermore]

Boom.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Taintslapp12283 Can I be happy if tomorrow it's 120?

[Z @ZeeContrarian1]

New position: $GDXJ - 5% of portfolio
Entry: $112.50

I like the long-term setup for gold, especially now that it has finally started to meaningfully diverge from Bitcoin.
The risk/reward looks attractive at current levels.
Long term hold, not a trade.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@apinions_ ��ราเคย % disposable income เท่าสิงคโปร์ เศร้าเลย

[Travers @TraversLL]

@ET_Kwang @IsriNiiNha ทำไมแอพเสียภาษีบอกว่า 100k คือตก top 5% ครับ

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Foliesta คอนเฟิร์ม range เงินเดือน senior หน่อยครับ ที่ผมได้ยินมาคือ 2 samples

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Mashimaro77 In Thailand, some places charge 120THB. 70THB is good compared to other "made-to-order" restaurants I tried.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@alitsamun99 @PhotoTardies มีครับ แถวบ้านผมนี่โชว์รูปคนนวดกับราคาใน Google Maps โจ่งแจ้งมาก

[Adam May @A_May_MD]

Always sharp @drug_smolecules making the case here that $ABVX doesn't even get a black box warning by comparing malignancy rates to Sotyktu, which was under a huge microscope for safety because its target (TYK2) is a member of the JAK family. Sotyktu did NOT get a black box warning despite huge regulatory attention that came with technically being a JAK inhibitor only by a different name.

Our friend DRUGS calculates $ABVX's per year malignancy risk as 0.48, versus 0.46 for Sotyktu with its ***CLEAN*** label. So there you go - FDA precedent says no black box, right? 0.48 is basically equivalent to the 0.46 rate of the drug that got zero labeling for malignancy...

But there's more! DRUGS here is actually missing a key, very big nuance - He's including only the *2nd* extension of the phase 2 trial and not the first. So he is missing 2-4 years of EXTRA squeaky clean safety for all 130 patients. This is essentially and entire extra *Phase 3* worth of patient-year safety data...

So let's redo the math with the full P2 dataset (using his initial numbers):

➡️357.5 patient-years from the 2nd P2 extension
➡️310 patient-years from the P3 (80% of 388 patients were completers at 52 weeks -not 44 weeks-)
➡️Now the extra 2-4 years of P2 at 50mg dosing that was inadvertently excluded...let's say the average time on therapy was only 2.25 years to account for dropouts. 2.25x130 = 292.5 more patient-years from the initial 2-4 years of P2 he missed.

Adding that in, the grand total becomes 960 patient years (instead of 619). Much of it at 50mg as well!

That takes the "malignancies excluding NMSC" rate to 3/960 = 0.31 👈👈👈

0.31...Lower than the 0.48 he initially roughly calculated and SIGNIFICANTLY lower than the 0.46 that Sotyktu showed WITOUT getting a black box warning DESPITE hitting one of the 4 JAK-family receptors.

0.46 with no black box versus 0.31...what are we to determine from that? To me, that very clearly reads as..."no black box".

Biotech is absolutely notorious for DRAMATIC and IRRATIONAL price swings after hours on new data. Anyone in this business can tell you a dozen times something opened WAY up or WAY down and ended up going completely the other direction over the next week.

IMO this is going to be one of those cases. I understand the market's knee jerk reaction, as this was a highly watched catalyst with a lot on the line, and any time you hear CANCER RISK you freak out.

But the market does not appreciate the nuances of such safety risks right away, and it certainly doesn't make calculations like what I laid out above on a dime. The market freaked out. It saw the "C word" and sold. IMO the market got this totally wrong and cooler heads will prevail tomorrow...the math says so.

Will some people stay freaked out despite the objective math above...sure...I mean, a rate of 0.31/year for $ABVX vs 0.46/year for a drug with no black box warning...come on. I can't tell you why people will look at that and still freak out but lets assume they do:

How much does that wash out with the fact that ABVX just showed the most unbelievably strong efficacy that has ever been seen with any drug for UC EVER (by a WIDE margin on endoscopic remission - like, it actually even crushed the *JAKs* on that)?

Objective MATH says no black box warning. And if that's what the market actually believed, with this efficacy, $ABVX would currently be $200+.

Back to $98 AH. The smart money will do the same math I just did above overnight, and in my opinion most will come to the same conclusion. Tomorrow, the "truth" -i.e. the price- will (in my opinion) end up somewhere in between.

Would I be shocked to see $ABVX green tomorrow? Far less shocked than I am at the absolutely INSANE efficacy they just showed. It would be neither the first nor last time the market got the initial reaction completely wrong.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@astudyofangst ทาสปั่นเปเปอร์อาจารย์คือ ป.โท ป.เอก ตรีบางคนยังไม่อ่านเปเปอร์เลย จะมาเหยียดอะไรคนทำวิจัยให้มหาลัยอันดับขึ้น

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Blastiphone @pureMetatron @TBYSTweet Chris lives in Sendai. Even around Sendai Station (city center) people don't speak English to you.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Mashimaro77 My automatic response is big building = Chinese. see the special economic zone vs Vientiane.

[Travers @TraversLL]

@Mashimaro77 I talked to a laotian he said all the scam centers moved out of Bo Keaw to Luang Prabang and Vientiane outskirts. And Bo Keaw is now safer.

[Alex Armstrong @Alexarmstrong]

You won’t see this on Emily in Paris will you?