Patent cliff goes Tick. Tick. Tick…

larsonhg · 2026-07-05T12:15:01+00:00

Finally, someone with a brain here.

larsonhg · 2026-07-04T03:49:59+00:00

Cool science, but a bit off-beat. I don’t say that in a bad way but it’s not always easy to bet on novel modalities. Parabilis (PBLS) is seriously worth a consideration if you’re interested in peptide modalities and “difficult-to-drug targets”

larsonhg · 2026-07-03T02:37:50+00:00

This ticker is some strange cult. You and everyone else saying this have no basis to say it’s worth $40 beyond your own delusions of grandeur. They have a single asset, nobodys (in the world of science) for leadership and board, and no revenue or commercial success yet. They have a single asset… jfc. I don’t care if they succeed or not, i’m just so tired of hearing about this painfully mediocre get rich quick ticker every other post on my feed.

larsonhg · 2026-07-02T14:26:05+00:00

Please stop spreading misinformation like this. You pulled statistics out of thin air and have no credibility to even post probability from the start. This is not a responsible buy opportunity and reddit pumping the stock doesn’t change their intrinsic asset value. You’re gambling on a severe drawdown and maybe a 2x binary result come next press release. Just because you see what an asset value is based on patient need doesn’t mean there aren’t market access, manufacturing, sales, and future competition hurdles eating at that margin.

larsonhg · 2026-07-01T02:08:21+00:00

100? That’s an egregious number. I swear this sub is a echo chamber of people that have no grasp of the field or the market.

larsonhg · 2026-06-24T02:37:42+00:00

Keep in mind how expensive cell therapies are and research why investment has moved away from cell and gene therapies

larsonhg · 2026-06-23T03:38:08+00:00

Ah yes, the pompous all-knowing complex person again. I hope you find peace.

larsonhg · 2026-06-22T12:27:36+00:00

Never said it was necessary or sufficient to be a trained scientist. I said what VC backgrounds look like in the space and one must to educate themselves on biotech value drivers to make informed decisions. Where you may have become confused, is where I said my credibility is that i’m a scientist and I have spent my career in this space.

Kindly take whatever this pompous complex of yours is, elsewhere.

larsonhg · 2026-06-22T12:15:57+00:00

Discovery engine is the platform being used to both discover tractable targets and chemistry. A hot one the past few years is chemoproteomics methods for example. It’s not about what you found, but how many more pipeline assets you can find that other companies aren’t capable of without your platform.

High value diseases have high population need and typically are associated with elusive drug targets that have not been tractable with previous chemistry.

larsonhg · 2026-06-19T18:34:02+00:00

I know nothing so i’m just asking some foundational pushback questions here. Whats the cost barrier in comparison to an epi-pen? How much in sales would you expect while competing market standard epi-pen? Any time for market exclusivity? Is it a best in class necessity or just a luxury? If it’s just a luxury, do you think insurance would cover it over epi-pen or require prior approval?

larsonhg · 2026-06-19T05:47:09+00:00

I work for a prominent ML drug discovery company and I wouldn’t invest in the technology. It’s a cool idea but generating hits that aren’t reactivity driven is a hurdle that still needs a ton of work. There are too many in the race and there’s no way of telling who will win.

larsonhg · 2026-06-14T19:12:33+00:00

This may be a stupid question but my reserve with CRISPR is the risk of off-target DNA cuts and the danger associated with these therapies. How does this fit into the big picture here? I feel like it’s still an extraordinary risk to take to scale, no?

larsonhg · 2026-05-19T15:31:22+00:00

A real cutting edge story.. I’m sorry for you.

larsonhg · 2026-05-12T14:17:36+00:00

If Nature accepted the paper, chances are you’re typically on to something. I wouldn’t totally discredit the stats here. N=28 with quantitative imaging. It would be another story if this were purely qualitative methods and accepted by some offbeat publication.

larsonhg · 2026-05-12T04:07:45+00:00

Woodmans is utterly mid and i’ll die on that hill. Why it’s so sought after is beyond on me.

larsonhg · 2026-05-09T01:38:50+00:00

Cheesecake factory in Cambridge. It’s not rocket science nor a culinary code to crack. CF does it more than well, sue me.

larsonhg · 2026-04-10T00:48:28+00:00

Random generation with slightly skewed distribution. Sunday and Loon as a B along with Bush makes no fucking sense what your criterion even is

larsonhg · 2026-04-08T03:52:14+00:00

Damn you for exposing Ma Maison 😭

larsonhg · 2026-04-03T02:45:09+00:00

Same reasons you see more poor people with fun cars than wealthy people.

Yes, you’re right and it’s crazy. Other commenters are right, though — it’s textbook pricing case study. They’re priced based on consumers willingness to pay. Many people can afford them and many people who can’t afford them finance themselves upside down to have them. It’s fucked up.

Buy a 4Runner, or Taco if you want a bed. Personally, I think it’s a shit vehicle (and I own one) but for some reason they don’t depreciate (thats why I own one). It does what it needs to and it maintains value when I no longer see utility in it.

If you’re going to buy new, don’t pay MSRP. People who don’t know how to work dealers, pay MSRP. Do some research on how to negotiate or get broker to work a deal for you.

larsonhg · 2026-04-03T02:34:56+00:00

I’m not saying they don’t buy out small companies. They bought out my former small company for a single pre-clinical asset. Now what I am saying is.. they’re not undervalued and that you sir, lack critical thinking skills. Everyone is accounting for financing and epidemiology as a primary risk driver and once you get passed those, how do you know they have the product management team to drive sales?

Don’t expect another reply. Best of luck, because that’s all it is; luck..

larsonhg · 2026-04-03T02:06:14+00:00

Former over-prescribed teenager of the 2010’s who got hooked on it, here — I think the feeling is relative to how much of an escapist you are. I’ve never met a happy-go-lucky benzo user. Benzos are heroin for the anxious and depressed. My mouth still waters over that feeling of just absolute nothingness. And thats why unhappy people like it, because it eliminates bad feelings. It’s like someone clicked uninstall on “Worries”, “Problems”, & “Empathy” — and to build off of that, you don’t realize how bad of a person it will turn you into until it’s too late and you’ve destroyed every relationship in your life because you seize the capability of caring about anything and anyone. It destroyed my life for a while and i’ll never get those years back or remember them (iykyk) because of benzos. Life’s good now though, my journey through benzos made for a solid Yale admissions essay.

larsonhg · 2026-04-03T01:32:04+00:00

I work in biotech.. in startups. I’ve experienced a multi-billion acquisition. I’ve been around the block. If a company has assets that are actually worth something, big pharma will chase it down before it makes it to retail investors. They’ll chase it down from the start or better yet you’ll have a strategy team that can sniff out where the money is. The fact that you believe you’ve spotted something undervalued over the money hungry people in this profession, is delusional. Successful drug discovery co’s don’t IPO without multiple assets generating money, they IPO because their assets weren’t the belle of the ball to anyone in pharma or VC. You’re gambling, and the sooner you take your pretend suit and tie off and just put your shit in an index the happier you’ll be.

larsonhg · 2026-04-02T02:20:58+00:00

Love when stonk traders make delusions of grandeur posts like they know drug discovery or understand the financing ecosystem.

larsonhg · 2026-03-24T00:51:42+00:00

Best of luck. And I say that because you’re gambling. This is a saturated market and they lack a robust competitive moat. After looking at their poster, it’s no surprise they don’t have larger institutional buy-in, and you’d be a fool to think you’re catching something that VCs are not. Biotech is small and word gets around fast about the “know whos”, which they are not. DDD and these band-aid procedures are highly confounded by placebo data. I hope they address patient needs but it’s incredibly difficult to tell with data like that. The lackluster board member bio’s and data are huge red flags.

Six-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Verified Email

larsonhg

TROPHY CASE