I've read Bioshares since 2006....not as a direct subscriber,...

I've read Bioshares since 2006....not as a direct subscriber, but the rag generally finds it's way into my inbox most weeks.

In my opinion, the guys do a good job of describing biotechnology companies, but their calls (like all analysts) are hit and miss. I wouldn't pay $400 a year for it.

For those that are alarmed by the call, it's important to note that Bioshares have had a sell on Alchemia for over a year. All they've done is maintain the call. From memory, they downgraded ACL to a sell due to 1) corporate uncertainty after Pete Smith and Mel Bridges left, but before Santo and Thomas were recruited; 2) a view that the interests of retail SH's might be compromised by dominance of institutional holders(??); and 3) performance of Fonda.

But whatever your view on either the reliability of Bioshares research, or their motivation for rating ACL as a sell, anyone who holds (or intends to hold) ACL should use the sell recommendation as a challenge to their view in an objective way.

From my read of their report, I'm happy to discount their negativity on market uptake of HA-Iri and the inference they take from ACL in-licensing FAK inhibitors, BUT I did note their bolded (typeface) reference to the low number of patients per site. Is this a problem? I'm not sure and don't have enough knowledge to form a view. If I'm reading the negative emphasis on the average of 5.5 patients per site, then I suppose at a high level this could be a source of unwanted variability in the data site. Nonetheless, 5.5 is an average, and I'm fairly sure (but not 100%) that the spread of patients across site is skewed and not evenly distributed?

For those who do subscribe, I'd recommend calling David to ask if he liaises directly with management, or if he forms a view just like you/we do....by observing the company and reading announcements? Did he attend the briefing last week?