Frequency Therapeutics — Hearing Loss Regeneration

#5,703
RB2014 said:
I read an article that came out that said it was under valued at the current stock price. Even though it is risky I do see some upside potential as long as the market doesn't crash. It has been steadily going up as well as more people find out about it and invest. I think you'll make some money in the coming months... and I think you could probably sell at a profit and get out at that time.

Now the million dollar question is whether to ride it out till the end... I think that is a gamble, but it could pay off. I'd take the easy money that says get out while the getting is good.

I think it was mentioned that a fair valuation was at around 27.50 dollars per share and if these articles keep coming out supporting that, I think it will actually hit it.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/3-strong-buy-biotech-stocks-164019585.html
Click to expand...
You're thinking of the Target Price, which is where an analyst thinks the stock will be in 1 year's time. 2 analysts have given a target price for FREQ: one from JP Morgan that gave a price of $25, and one from Goldman Sachs who gave a target price of $30. These prices should be taken with a grain of salt. As an example, I remember when Auris Medical (EARS) was around $2 a share and some analysts had target prices of $12 a share [1]. The stock went on to crash even further.

Also, these prices would be after the Phase II top-line data is released. I would be curious as to how they came upon their target prices. They may spend all day crunching numbers and these prices are just based on how similar companies preformed.

[1] http://www.newsoracle.com/2016/09/1...rt-about-auris-medical-holding-ag-nasdaqears/ - the $EARS stock had some reverse stock splits to keep it listed on the NASDAQ. If you look at historical information it might list the price as $800 in 2016, but it wasn't that high. As this article mentions, it started off the year around $6 a share. If the reverse splits hadn't happened, a 2016 share of Auris Medical stock would be worth less than a penny today.
 
#5,705
I wonder if this could regenerate middle ear and eustachian tube cilia that have been damaged due to a viral or bacterial infection. Ear infection was the cause of my tinnitus and to this day, I still have trouble clearing mucosal secretions despite normal middle ear pressure and tube function. To be honest I am more desperate for my tube to work properly than curing tinnitus. I say this as someone with bilateral tinnitus and intermittent PT.
 
#5,706
patorjk said:
You're thinking of the Target Price, which is where an analyst thinks the stock will be in 1 year's time. 2 analysts have given a target price for FREQ: one from JP Morgan that gave a price of $25, and one from Goldman Sachs who gave a target price of $30. These prices should be taken with a grain of salt. As an example, I remember when Auris Medical (EARS) was around $2 a share and some analysts had target prices of $12 a share [1]. The stock went on to crash even further.

Also, these prices would be after the Phase II top-line data is released. I would be curious as to how they came upon their target prices. They may spend all day crunching numbers and these prices are just based on how similar companies preformed.

[1] http://www.newsoracle.com/2016/09/1...rt-about-auris-medical-holding-ag-nasdaqears/ - the $EARS stock had some reverse stock splits to keep it listed on the NASDAQ. If you look at historical information it might list the price as $800 in 2016, but it wasn't that high. As this article mentions, it started off the year around $6 a share. If the reverse splits hadn't happened, a 2016 share of Auris Medical stock would be worth less than a penny today.
Click to expand...
Target price can also greatly underestimate where a stock will be, too, especially in biotech.

I also don't think their price targets necessarily reflect post phase 2 data. A lot of times there is a huge run up even before trial results. This happens a lot with biotech (more often than not) and there can be other near term catalysts too.

But like you said, there is always the risk the price target can overestimate it because the stock market is just speculation, even for analysts--unless they have inside info.

Analyst ratings can unfortunately also be a way to manipulate stock price one way or another, too. So that's another grain of salt, too.

If anyone on this forum is considering buying shares, it's been said many times, but do it with money you could afford to lose and do your own due diligence.

I personally think there is such a huge potential upside to this drug that the benefit to risk ratio is high but that's solely my opinion.
 
#5,709
I had somewhat of a high frequency tinnitus spike yesterday and played the ACRN app and found out that I was stone cold deaf above 15 kHz and it wasn't my laptop speakers because my younger co-worker could hear it. Today, my tinnitus is off and on completely gone. I tested my hearing again and I could hear up to about 16.5 kHz. So it seems to me like hearing loss and tinnitus are certainly related.
 
#5,710
JohnAdams said:
I had somewhat of a high frequency tinnitus spike yesterday and played the ACRN app and found out that I was stone cold deaf above 15 kHz and it wasn't my laptop speakers because my younger co-worker could hear it. Today, my tinnitus is off and on completely gone. I tested my hearing again and I could hear up to about 16.5 kHz. So it seems to me like hearing loss and tinnitus are certainly related.
Click to expand...
My tinnitus is 100% without a doubt due to hearing loss. I had an acoustic trauma and instantly got unrelenting tinnitus. Had an audiogram a few months before the acoustic trauma happened - result: perfect hearing. Had another one done right after the acoustic trauma. Had a slight dip in hearing at higher frequency levels. Got an IT injection of steroids in my ears a week after the acoustic trauma and my hearing bounced backed slightly on the 3rd audiogram. My tinnitus got a little better with the slight hearing improvement. My tinnitus still sucks but I have no doubt with further restoration of my high frequency hearing my tinnitus will improve.
 
#5,711
patorjk said:
You're thinking of the Target Price, which is where an analyst thinks the stock will be in 1 year's time. 2 analysts have given a target price for FREQ: one from JP Morgan that gave a price of $25, and one from Goldman Sachs who gave a target price of $30. These prices should be taken with a grain of salt. As an example, I remember when Auris Medical (EARS) was around $2 a share and some analysts had target prices of $12 a share [1]. The stock went on to crash even further.

Also, these prices would be after the Phase II top-line data is released. I would be curious as to how they came upon their target prices. They may spend all day crunching numbers and these prices are just based on how similar companies preformed.

[1] http://www.newsoracle.com/2016/09/1...rt-about-auris-medical-holding-ag-nasdaqears/ - the $EARS stock had some reverse stock splits to keep it listed on the NASDAQ. If you look at historical information it might list the price as $800 in 2016, but it wasn't that high. As this article mentions, it started off the year around $6 a share. If the reverse splits hadn't happened, a 2016 share of Auris Medical stock would be worth less than a penny today.
Click to expand...
A lot of these hearing loss companies have not done well. Is GenVec still around... I remember their stock getting really low. Agreed with the others. It's a risk.

I still think it's a good short term gamble. With more people becoming aware of the stock and the positive articles... I really think i'ts good for a run up over the next year. After that... anyone's guess.
 
#5,713
Skity said:
I have a question, why does this trial even need a placebo control? It's not like people are going to start hearing new frequencies due to the placebo effect...
Click to expand...
Some people might of said they got improvements from the placebo so of course they need to do it
 
#5,718
Skity said:
I have a question, why does this trial even need a placebo control? It's not like people are going to start hearing new frequencies due to the placebo effect...
Click to expand...
I agree. I mean hard evidence is hard evidence. (Improved word scores or hearing). You can't fake that. People could claim their tinnitus is improved but that also can be a placebo, and they're not really testing that as a primary goal.

Ultimately nobody here can answer your question. Anything is speculative on our part. Frequency Therapeutics does their own thing without the use of any of our logic.
 
#5,719
Lucifer said:
Some people might of said they got improvements from the placebo so of course they need to do it
Click to expand...
But it's not about what they say, it's about what their audiogram says, raised your hand while I played a frequency you physically couldn't hear before? so it worked..
 
#5,721
Rb86 said:
I agree. I mean hard evidence is hard evidence. (Improved word scores or hearing). You can't fake that. People could claim their tinnitus is improved but that also can be a placebo, and they're not really testing that as a primary goal.

Ultimately nobody here can answer your question. Anything is speculative on our part. Frequency Therapeutics does their own thing without the use of any of our logic.
Click to expand...
JohnAdams said:
Which is ridiculous. If they develop technology to regenerate human limbs will they need a placebo control for that study?
Click to expand...
The question is intriguing, but extreme and at a great disconnect to the reality of where we currently believe ourselves to be with this.

I am all for the placebo group in this instance especially; we have a condition that is VERY hard to measure and may change naturally over time (I believe you report your quality of hearing as changing from day to day?). As such a placebo is essential to reduce levels of uncertainty in trial output; we have heard about those initial results that suggest incremental improvements. The fact that a control group is used increases confidence in the results greatly and, this confidence of improvement is (even from our self-interested views) the trial output of primary importance.

Do we want investment to continue to aid the development of drugs like this one? The attraction of investment demands confidence in reported results, not from our focused perspectives but primarily from investors who have a sea of investment opportunities available. It is in our interests that it is ensured that investments are made at a fair price. Increasing investor confidence through rigour is an aid to this.

Do we want to see sham treatments rejected at an early stage before false hope is raised and (far worse) resources are miss-spent? I think so - the inclusion of a placebo helps do this.

Now being a patient that gets a placebo dose in the trial that finally cracks this nut would suck. I get that 100%.

But what would be even more terrible, and impact a far greater number of souls, would be if that nut-cracking wonder-drug being developed and validated was five days, ten months or twenty years late. Why? Because well possibly 'it was considered at one point, but investors didn't have enough confidence' to invest enough to get this thing over the line.

As an aside I am appalled by the apparent lack of compensation offered to participants for time/travel. Here in the UK earning from clinical trials are tax free and travel is generally well subsidised (to the point of even greater profit in many cases!). Indeed I am troubled by the apparent delays the lack of trial participants are, as I have heard hearsay in this thread, causing. If you are sitting on millions of dollars worth of investment you want to make it work for you, not collect dust whilst you act stingy with travel costs.
 
#5,722
tarmaced said:
I am all for the placebo group in this instance especially; we have a condition that is VERY hard to measure and may change naturally over time (I believe you report your quality of hearing as changing from day to day?).
Click to expand...
I wasn't specifically talking about FX-322. I was just saying the etched in stone requirement for placebos in general.
 
#5,723
1st: I have not disrespected anyone.

2nd: If FX-322 works for tinnitus, then why is it only proven in those who have hearing loss and not in those who only have tinnitus?

It seems that you can't argue about FX-322 or rather, that only certain people can argue about FX-322.

On Tinnitus Talk, the majority declare to have good hearing, in fact, none of them are chosen for the clinical trials because a certain level of hearing loss is demanded. Without hearing loss there is no FX-322.

If FX-322 comes out tomorrow and if you only have tinnitus, doctors won't "prescribe" it most likely.
 
#5,724
antonio77 said:
If FX-322 works for tinnitus, then why is it only proven in those who have hearing loss and not in those who only have tinnitus?
Click to expand...
Their last trial didn't measure tinnitus. Also, their last trial only tested it for people with significant hearing loss. They are testing it for hearing loss and tinnitus now in this trial. We will know in a year or so.
 
#5,725
antonio77 said:
1st: I have not disrespected anyone.

2nd: If FX-322 works for tinnitus, then why is it only proven in those who have hearing loss and not in those who only have tinnitus?

It seems that you can't argue about FX-322 or rather, that only certain people can argue about FX-322.

On Tinnitus Talk, the majority declare to have good hearing, in fact, none of them are chosen for the clinical trials because a certain level of hearing loss is demanded. Without hearing loss there is no FX-322.

If FX-322 comes out tomorrow and if you only have tinnitus, doctors won't "prescribe" it most likely.
Click to expand...
A very large percentage of people get tinnitus from hearing loss, even people who don't realize they have hearing loss because they never got an extended audiogram to 16000 Hz and/or don't realize they have cochlear synaptopathy (aka "hidden hearing loss").
 
#5,726
RB2014 said:
A lot of these hearing loss companies have not done well. Is GenVec still around... I remember their stock getting really low. Agreed with the others. It's a risk.

I still think it's a good short term gamble. With more people becoming aware of the stock and the positive articles... I really think i'ts good for a run up over the next year. After that... anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Because most of those companies are either snake oil seller or a proper scam.
 
#5,727
I heard the news that Frequency has FDA fast tracking! I'm very excited for everyone that it can help.
 
#5,729
JohnAdams said:
I had somewhat of a high frequency tinnitus spike yesterday and played the ACRN app and found out that I was stone cold deaf above 15 kHz and it wasn't my laptop speakers because my younger co-worker could hear it. Today, my tinnitus is off and on completely gone. I tested my hearing again and I could hear up to about 16.5 kHz. So it seems to me like hearing loss and tinnitus are certainly related.
Click to expand...
I have tinnitus that registers in high frequencies, and hearing white noise causes it to get really loud for a short period of time. But I can still hear up to 19 kHz like I was able to when I was 18 years old. I'm 30 now. I also got it from what I believe to be ototoxicity from alcohol, which no one else has seemed to report happening. Tinnitus and its origin seems to be as unique to the individual as our own fingerprints.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now

Similar threads

N
Delix Therapeutics — Neuroplastogen for Hearing Loss
Replies
6
Views
3K
Research News
AverageJoe12
AverageJoe12
N
Hoba Therapeutics' HB-097 for Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Replies
2
Views
1K
Research News
Nick47
N
N
Amber Therapeutics — Brain Implants
Replies
0
Views
763
Research News
Nick47
N
LBE
Intratympanic Lidocaine as a Potent Remedy for Tinnitus in Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Replies
2
Views
650
Research News
LBE
LBE
I
From Hidden Hearing Loss to Supranormal Auditory Processing by Increasing Neurotrophin 3
Replies
3
Views
2K
Research News
sspencermo
sspencermo
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Members
Donate
Menu