Connect with us

Government

Top Penny Stocks to Add to Your Watchlist Right Now

Can these penny stocks push up in January 2022?
The post Top Penny Stocks to Add to Your Watchlist Right Now appeared first on Penny Stocks to Buy, Picks, News and Information | PennyStocks.com.

Published

on

3 Top Penny Stocks to Watch As We Turn the Corner in January 

With such a large range of penny stocks to choose from, finding the best ones for your watchlist can be challenging. But, with the right amount of research and a dedicated trading strategy, finding the best penny stocks to buy can be much easier than previously imagined. To find penny stocks that could be worth it, it takes a thorough understanding of what is going on in the stock market and how to trade. 

When it comes to trading penny stocks, there are two main strategies that investors utilize. On one hand, we have long-term trading. While this is less common given the sheer amount of volatility that penny stocks see, it is a viable strategy. On the other hand, we have short term or swing trading. This tends to be the most popular trading method solely because penny stocks move frequently. 

[Read More] Best Penny Stocks To Buy Now? 3 To Watch After Trump Stocks Surge

While no one strategy is better than another, it all comes down to what type of trader you are. So, knowing what type of trader you are is paramount to making money with penny stocks in 2022. Considering all of this, let’s take a look at three penny stocks to watch right now. 

3 Penny Stocks to Add to Your Watchlist in January 

  1. Borqs Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: BRQS)
  2. Ambev ADR (NYSE: ABEV
  3. Ideanomics Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX

Borqs Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: BRQS) 

One of the bigger gainers of the day so far is BRQS stock. By EOD, shares of BRQS stock had shot up by over 20% to north of $0.44 per share. While many large gains occur without news, only a few weeks ago, Borqs made an exciting announcement. The company stated that it has entered into the EV smart cockpit market. 

“We are very pleased to team up with Cheyin to leverage our deep expertise in the IoT and embedded software solutions. Borqs has developed software for In-Vehicle-Infotainment systems in the past several years which were installed in some of the China-made automobiles. Digital transformation in the automobile industry is accelerating in the coming years because of the robust growth of electric vehicles.”

Pat Chan, the CEO of Borqs Technologies

If you’re not familiar, Borqs is a Qualcomm portfolio company, and is a large player in the IoT, products, and software market. The company has a large range of IP as well as software that it offers to its customers. Recently, Borqs has also moved into the 5G market through new products for phones and hotspots. Right now, there is a major amount of emphasis on tech penny stocks. And, with this new update putting Borqs into the EV market, it’s clear the company could remain in the public eye. With that in mind, will it be on your penny stocks watchlist?

Ambev ADR (NYSE: ABEV) 

ABEV is a penny stock that we’ve covered numerous times over the past few weeks. And again today, shares of the beverage company are climbing during trading. In the past five days, ABEV stock has shot up by over 7%. While shares are still down for the year period, it looks like we are witnessing a small bullish turnaround with Ambev right now. 

So, why the bullish sentiment with Ambev ADR in January? Well, since its earnings report for the third quarter came out a few months ago, investors have showed a renewed confidence in the future of the company. It stated that in its keys markets, it was able to grow in volume by around 8%. 

[Read More] 4 Top Penny Stocks To Watch For A Short Squeeze

One of the interesting aspects of Ambev or any beverage company is that they tend to see sales increase in both positive and negative economic times. For example, when people were at home due to the pandemic, the sale of alcohol rose significantly. And now that people are once again going out, we’ve seen those same sales continue to rise. While ABEV stock can be quite volatile, it could also be worth looking into for your list of penny stocks to watch. 

Penny_Stocks_to_Watch_Ambev

Ideanomics Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) 

Another popular penny stock to watch right now is Ideanomics Inc. Today, shares of IDEX managed to climb by almost 5%, ending the day at just under $1.20 per share. If you’re not familiar, Ideanomics operates under two main categories. On one hand, its Ideanomics Mobility division invests in budding EV technology. On the other hand, its Ideanomics Capital division does the same but with new Fintech related offerings. The most recent news from IDEX came as the company announced an investment into InoBat. This is a company working on the development of new electric batteries. 

“InoBat prides itself on providing innovative solutions across the entire battery value chain thanks to our own ‘cradle-to-cradle’ approach. We are thrilled to join hands with Ideanomics, a like-minded company with vehicles across a wide range of industries.” 

The CEO of InoBat, Marian Bocek

With the major bullish emphasis on EV penny stocks right now, it’s clear that IDEX is in focus. Whether this makes it worth adding to your watchlist however is up to you. But, investors should continue to consider the future of both industries that Ideanomics works in before making a decision. 

Penny_Stocks_to_Watch_Ideanomics

Which Penny Stocks Are You Watching Right Now?

If you’re looking for the best penny stocks to buy, there are hundreds of options to choose from. But, investors need to have a consistent trading strategy on hand and a thorough understanding of how to trade in order to have the best chance of making money with penny stocks. Right now, there are quite a few industries that investors are interested in. This includes biotech penny stocks, tech penny stocks, and in the near future, reopening penny stocks. 

[Read More] Stock Market News For Today, January 14th, 2022

Within each of these industries are penny stocks that could be worth it; but it depends on specific companies and their fundamentals. At the end of the day, trading is a very individual task, and should be approached as such. With all of that in mind, which penny stocks are you watching right now?


If you enjoyed this article and you’re interested in learning how to trade so you can have the best chance to profit consistently then you need to checkout this YouTube channel. CLICK HERE RIGHT NOW!


The post Top Penny Stocks to Add to Your Watchlist Right Now appeared first on Penny Stocks to Buy, Picks, News and Information | PennyStocks.com.

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

Those big billion-dollar PhIII studies? Martin Landray says they can be done for a tiny fraction of the cost

Martin Landray knows what controversy in clinical drug development feels like, from first-hand experience.
Bioregnum Opinion Column by John Carroll
Landray…

Published

on

Martin Landray knows what controversy in clinical drug development feels like, from first-hand experience.

Bioregnum Opinion Column by John Carroll

Landray was the chief architect of RECOVERY, a study that pitted a variety of drugs against Covid-19. And he offered some landmark data that would help push dexamethasone out into broader use as a cheap treatment, while helping ice hydroxy’s reputation as a clear misfire.

“Lots of people told us we shouldn’t use it,” Landray says about dexamethasone and Covid-19. “It was dangerous. We shouldn’t even do a trial. They also cared about hydroxychloroquine and lots of people said we shouldn’t do a trial because it must be used. I’ve got the letters from both sets of people.”

Now, after 20 years of mounting clinical trials, the Oxford professor is building on what he’s learned from RECOVERY and scores of drug studies to take on one of the most quixotic tasks in the industry: building an organization that can take a drug — anything from a cheap generic like dexamethasone to an experimental biopharma drug — and put it through its paces in large Phase III trials. And at just a tiny fraction of the cost developers would normally spend on late-stage programs.

A lot of this depends on approaching drug data in a new way, carefully and precisely identifying the data needed, without overcomplicating matters, then working in alignment with key drug developers, patient groups, providers — the UK’s NHS, with its massive database, is a supporter — and clinical organizations to recruit en masse.

In doing that, he intends to break a decades-long trend in drug development that has steered large and small organizations away from the big population studies needed for cardio and other broad disease areas like dementia and into the rare disease field, where smaller trials are the norm.

And that makes him a radical in what he sees as a field that’s begging for a game-changing revolution.

“It’s unsustainable,” says the Oxford professor about the Phase III sector of R&D. “I mean, it’s already broken … The so-called GCP regulations, good clinical practice, the old joke goes they’re not good, they’re not clinical, and they’re not practical. And that joke has been around 25 years and hasn’t changed much.”

This is not something that needs incremental improvement. From his perspective, this is a big issue for the world.

Huge financial and public health issues were at stake when the Covid vaccines first entered the clinic, and decisions were made on those with what Landray considers “pretty scruffy evidence.”

“The original vaccine trials cost probably a billion dollars apiece,” Landray says. “The idea, if you turned around to one of those companies and said, ‘And now we want you to do a trial of a million people.’ They’d say, ‘Well, our pockets are just not that deep.’ If you say, ‘Well, I want to do a trial of a million people and it costs a million pounds,’ suddenly the possibilities open up. And we put the proposal together for that. I’m absolutely serious about those numbers.”

David Schenkein

Click on the image to see the full-sized version

Landray has done more than simply win over some converts to the Phase III revolution he’s plotting. He’s building a non-profit organization called Protas that has drawn some influential backers in biopharma. Sanofi came in early on with a promise to collaborate and £5 million. And today GV — Google’s venture arm — is in for another £5 million grant, with active support from David Schenkein, a high-profile researcher who helped build Agios before jumping to venture capital.

“I’ve been doing clinical trials my whole life out of grade school,” Schenkein, a Genentech alum, tells me, “and we need to see the whole ecosystem improve. And that’s good for everybody. So it is definitely a philanthropic grant, but we think it’ll improve the entire ecosystem, which we’re obviously so committed to. We’ve known Martin and his team for years and have just been incredibly impressed. And we’ve looked at the clinical trial space and we’ve talked about this before, you and I, but what Martin and his team have done have just been outpacing everybody else.”

“There’s no question that the way we do Phase III clinical trials today is largely no different than the way we did them when I first went into the industry or where we’ve been doing it for 40 years, which means we enroll patients the same way we used to. We don’t go directly to patients in many cases,” Schenkein adds. “We only go through the sites. The sites say, ‘Yeah, I’ll give you 20 patients.’ They end up giving you zero. And so you need more sites. We end up collecting way more data. We don’t know which is the right data to collect, and so we collect everything. We clean everything. And all of that drives the cost up exponentially and slows it down. And what Martin and his team have just gotten so much smarter using data to be able to say, not only how do we enroll patients in a different way, how do we know the right data to collect, not collect too much data, the right data. So all of that will just completely change the way we think about conducting clinical trials, and that has to happen.”

Dietmar Berger

“We engaged with them because we believe integration of clinical trials into everyday clinical practice can be an important new model, which offers advantages both for the healthcare system as well as for sponsors,” Sanofi development chief Dietmar Berger tells me. “Running large late-stage trials in close collaboration with practicing physicians and a large healthcare provider (for example via Protas) can lead to more efficient data generation, with representation of a diverse, ‘real world’ population. This could apply especially for large studies in common diseases, and include novel drugs.”

Right now, there are no trials underway at Protas or ones planned before 2024. Landray is using his funding to create a group that can orchestrate a variety of new methods to smash classic Phase III budgets. And his experiences running the informatics part in the early days of the UK Biobank project — with its half a million subjects enrolled in a massive genetics project — have helped.

We just need to spend those two years making sure that we’ve got all the right things in place. Part of that is technology. IT systems actually make it easier to do the right thing in terms of following the protocol. Part of that is about regulatory and other policies. And we’ve been doing a lot of work with ICH, with FDA, with all sorts of organizations around what should good clinical trials regulation look like? Part of that is building on the experiences from things like the RECOVERY trial. Part of that is partnerships with clinicians, clinical health services, and patient groups. We need those things in place before one actually starts delivering.

If you say, have we started planning? Yes, we’ve started thinking about some of those first trials. I just don’t have anything concrete to talk about today.

Landray has given this all a lot of thought, and it’s worth listening carefully to what he has to say about the many things that have skewed so far off course in drug development. And why it’s important to get on the right track.

What we’ve seen is that Big Pharma has largely opted out of developing new drugs for common diseases. That’s true in heart disease, in arthritis, and so on. Respiratory disease. It’s very true if one looks at depression. It’s substantially true if one looks at dementia, where there are two challenges to dementia. One is, can we find some potential drugs that might work? Probably. And then the second is, how are we ever going to make that commercially successful? And that’s going to be driven in large part by what’s the affordability and the practicality of doing those sorts of trials that you would need to do in dementia.

So it’s not just about how we get drugs cheaper, but it’s also, from my point of view, it’s can we get better drugs to treat the big issues? And if one looks at a health system and again — goes back to that point of view for a moment — the reason that everybody’s health system is creaking/broken is largely because there are very large numbers of people who are late middle aged and elderly with two or three or possibly more relatively common conditions. And if we want to actually get something that is much more sustainable in terms of an overall health system and public health, then we have to tackle common disease and we have to also tackle the prevention elements, whether that’s early detection of cancer or preventative treatments like reducing the risk of future cardiovascular events.

Schenkein agrees wholeheartedly: “I think that the most important factor here is the shift we’ve seen in our industry away from investments in the common diseases more towards the rare. I agree with Martin. The rare diseases are critically important, but that shift has to come back the other way.”

Consider the case of PCSK9, the big target that drove Amgen and Novartis out onto the market with limited data on efficacy in an attempt to reach a portion of the population that could benefit from it.

Here’s Landray:

In the PCSK9 antibodies, yes, they showed it reduced MACE, major cardiovascular events, but didn’t show an impact on cardiovascular death and they didn’t have the full range of safety information you might want to see for a new class of drugs. Then what happens was that someone had to pay back the cost of those trials. One of the many contributing factors, but a significant one, is how do we recoup our R&D costs, of which something like half or more is probably on that single late-phase trial.

And then the payers turn around…and they say, that’s all very well, but we see you’ve demonstrated efficacy in that, remember, limited population of all the patients who’ve had heart disease, but we can’t really afford to treat all of those patients. And therefore we’ll put in place some other clinical guidance. It’s all called clinical guidance or whatever, but it’s basically a form of rationing.

That can substantially be avoided if you avoid calamitous R&D costs.

That could be arguable, as drugs aren’t priced — in the US in any case — according to the cost of development. But you’ll never break through that barrier, Landray argues, until you start doing huge studies at relatively meager prices.

For Landray, this isn’t about empire building. If Protas can break the mold and essentially force the rest of the R&D world to adopt it, he’d gladly shut down a decade from now. Mission accomplished.

But first there’s a revolution to inspire.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

A Deeper Dive Into The CDC Reversal

A Deeper Dive Into The CDC Reversal

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

It was a good but bizarre day when the CDC finally…

Published

on

A Deeper Dive Into The CDC Reversal

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

It was a good but bizarre day when the CDC finally reversed itself fundamentally on its messaging for two-and-a-half years.

The source is the MMWR report of August 11, 2022. The title alone shows just how deeply the about-face was buried: Summary of Guidance for Minimizing the Impact of COVID-19 on Individual Persons, Communities, and Health Care Systems — United States, August 2022

The authors: “the CDC Emergency Response Team” consisting of “Greta M. Massetti, PhD; Brendan R. Jackson, MD; John T. Brooks, MD; Cria G. Perrine, PhD; Erica Reott, MPH; Aron J. Hall, DVM; Debra Lubar, PhD;; Ian T. Williams, PhD; Matthew D. Ritchey, DPT; Pragna Patel, MD; Leandris C. Liburd, PhD; Barbara E. Mahon, MD.”

It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall in the brainstorming sessions that led to this little treatise. The wording was chosen very carefully, not to say anything false outright, much less admit any errors of the past, but to imply that it was only possible to say these things now. 

“As SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, continues to circulate globally, high levels of vaccine- and infection-induced immunity and the availability of effective treatments and prevention tools have substantially reduced the risk for medically significant COVID-19 illness (severe acute illness and post–COVID-19 conditions) and associated hospitalization and death. These circumstances now allow public health efforts to minimize the individual and societal health impacts of COVID-19 by focusing on sustainable measures to further reduce medically significant illness as well as to minimize strain on the health care system, while reducing barriers to social, educational, and economic activity.

In English: 

everyone can pretty much go back to normal.

Focus on illness that is medically significant. Stop worrying about positive cases because nothing is going to stop them. Think about the bigger picture of overall social health. End the compulsion. Thank you. It’s only two and a half years late. 

What about mass testing?

Forget it:

“All persons should seek testing for active infection when they are symptomatic or if they have a known or suspected exposure to someone with COVID-19.”

Oh. 

What about the magic of track and trace?

“CDC now recommends case investigation and contact tracing only in health care settings and certain high-risk congregate settings.”

Oh. 

What about the unvaccinated who were so demonized throughout the last year? 

“CDC’s COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur, though they are generally mild, and persons who have had COVID-19 but are not vaccinated have some degree of protection against severe illness from their previous infection.”

Remember when 40% of the members of the black community in New York City who refused the jab were not allowed into restaurants, bars, libraries, museums, or theaters? Now, no one wants to talk about that. 

Also, universities, colleges, the military, and so on – which still have mandates in place – do you hear this? Everything you have done to hate on people, dehumanize people, segregate people, humiliate others as unclean, fire people and destroy lives, now stands in disrepute. 

Meanwhile, as of this writing, the blasted US government still will not allow unvaccinated travelers across its borders! 

Not one word of the CDC’s turgid treatise was untrue back in the Spring of 2020. There was always “infection-induced immunity,” though Fauci and Co. constantly pretended otherwise. It was always a terrible idea to introduce “barriers to social, educational, and economic activity.” The vaccines never promised in their authorization to stop infection and spread, even though all official statements of the CDC claimed otherwise, repeatedly and often. 

You might also wonder how the great reversal treats masking. On this subject, there is no backing off. After all, the Biden administration still has an appeal in process to reverse the court decision that the mask mandate was illegal all along.

“At the high COVID-19 Community Level,” the CDC adds, “additional recommendations focus on all persons wearing masks indoors in public and further increasing protection to populations at high risk.”

The problem from the beginning was that there never was an exit strategy from the crazy lockdown/mandate idea. It was never the case that they would magically cause the bug to go away. The excuse that we would lock down in wait for a vaccine never made any sense. 

People surely knew early on of the social, economic, and cultural devastation that would ensue. If they did not, they never should have been anywhere near the control switches of public health. Badges and bureaucracies do not terrify a virus destined to spread to the whole planet. And not one person with even the most casual passing knowledge of coronaviruses could have sincerely believed that a vaccine would magically appear to achieve something never before achieved in the whole history of medicine. 

When the Great Barrington Declaration appeared on October 4, 2020, it caused a global frenzy of fury not because it said anything new. It was merely a pithy restatement of basic public-health principles, which pretty much instantly became verboten on March 16, 2020, when Fauci/Birx announced their grand scheme. 

The GBD generated mania because the existing praxis was based on preposterously unproven claims that demanded that billions of people buy into complete nonsense. Sadly many did simply because it seemed hard to believe that all world regimes but a handful would push such a damaging policy if it was utterly unworkable. When something like that happens – and there never was the hope that it could work – the regime imperative becomes censorship and shaming of dissent. It’s the only way to hold the great lie together. 

So finally, nearly two years later the CDC has embraced the Great Barrington Declaration rather than doing a “quick and devastating takedown” as Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci called for the day after its release. No, they had to try out their new theory on the rest of us. It did not work, obviously. For the authors of the GBD, they knew from the time they penned the document that it was a matter of time before they were vindicated. They never doubted it. 

Dr. Rajeev Venkayya is widely credited with coming up with the idea of lockdowns while he was working for the Bush administration back in 2005. He had no training at all in public health or epidemiology. He later marveled that it fell to him, a young desk-dwelling White House bureaucrat, to “invent pandemic planning.” Maybe he should have demurred that day that George W. Bush asked him to lead the charge to inaugurate a new war on pathogens. 

Somehow his views gained converts, among whom was Bill Gates, the foundation for whom he worked for years. The rest is history. 

In April 2020, Venkayya called me to explain why I needed to stop attacking lockdowns. He said that the planners need a chance to make their scheme work. 

On the phone, I asked the same question over and over: where does the virus go? The first two times, he did not respond. I pressed and pressed. Finally he said there will be a vaccine. 

It’s hard to appreciate just how preposterous that sounded at the time, and I said something along those lines: it would be a medical miracle never before seen to have a shot for a coronavirus that was sterilizing against wild type and all inevitable mutations, and to do it in a reasonable time so that society and economy had not completely fallen apart. 

The whole approach was clearly milliennarian at best and utter madness at worst. And here I was, in the thick of global lockdowns, on the phone with the architect of the whole idea, an idea that had reduced billions to servitude, wrecked schools and churches, and sent communities and countries into complete upheaval. I wondered at the time what it would be like to be Dr. Venkayya that day. After all this ended in disaster, would he take responsibility? His LinkedIn profile today says otherwise: he is prepared to “tackle current and future epidemic & pandemic threats as the CEO of Aerium Therapeutics.”

There never was an exit strategy from lockdowns and mandates but they eventually did find an exit nonetheless. It came in the form of a heavily footnoted and opaquely written reversal, published by the main bureaucracy responsible for the disaster. It amounts to a repudiation without saying so. And thus does the great experiment in mass compulsion come to an intellectual end. If only the carnage could be cleaned up by another posting on the CDC’s website. 

By the way, the Biden administration has extended the declaration of Covid emergency. And my unvaccinated friends in the UK still can’t board a plane to come for a visit. 

All of this gives rise to the great question: what was the point? Maybe it was all a mistake and now it is gone forever but that’s unlikely. The intellectuals who pushed this project on the world have a view of the world that is fundamentally ill-liberal. They differ among themselves on the details but the general approach is technocratic central planning rooted in deep suspicion of basic tenets of freedom. 

How many people on the planet have now been acculturated to top-down control, socialized to live in fear, accept whatever comes down from above, never to question an edict, and expect to live in a world of rolling man-made disasters? And was that the point after all, to cultivate low expectations for life on earth and relinquish the soul’s desire for a full and free life? 

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/18/2022 - 09:49

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Japan Wants People To Drink More Alcohol As Generational Trend Cuts Tax Haul

Japan Wants People To Drink More Alcohol As Generational Trend Cuts Tax Haul

In some sort of Bizarro World scenario, declining alcohol consumption…

Published

on

Japan Wants People To Drink More Alcohol As Generational Trend Cuts Tax Haul

In some sort of Bizarro World scenario, declining alcohol consumption is causing alarm in the halls of Japanese government, as the trend is putting a big dent in the country's tax haul.

Average adult alcohol intake dropped from 100 liters a year in 1995 to 75 liters in 2020. Meanwhile, alcohol taxes declined from providing 3% of Japan's tax revenue in 2011 to 2% in 2020.

As the Financial Times explains, much of the trend can be attributed to demographics:

A fall in the total volume of alcohol consumed in Japan was inevitable once the indigenous population began to shrink over a decade ago and the proportion of citizens aged over 65 increased to more than a quarter of the country eight years ago. 

Reflecting a worldwide phenomenon, Japan's younger generations aren't drinking as much as their parents and grandparents did. 

The general downtrend gained steam when the Covid-19 pandemic disrupted lifestyles. Restaurants and bars closed or limited their operations, and people socialized less and shifted to working from home. "Many people may have come to question whether they need to continue the habit of drinking with colleagues to deepen communication,” a tax official told the Japan Times.  

The drop in revenue from 2018 to 2020 was the largest in 31 years. Taxes took a big hit in 1989 with a major change in Japan's Liquor Tax Law. 

Fear not -- having admitted it has an alcohol problem, Japan's tax agency will no longer sit idle while sobriety insidiously spreads throughout the population. A government campaign is afoot to encourage people to hit the bottle. 

The first phase of the drinking drive is a contest called "Sake Viva!", which asks Japanese citizens between the ages of 20 and 39 to come up with fresh ideas for juicing the country's alcohol business. In addition to seeking "new products and designs" and new sales methods, the tax agency also wants strategies to encourage people to drink at home, reports The Guardian

After winners are named at a gala in November, the tax office plans to promote the adoption of the winning ideas by alcohol-related businesses. Japan's health ministry isn't participating in the contest, but said it trusted the ensuing campaigns would emphasize drinking only "the appropriate amount of alcohol." 

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/18/2022 - 10:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending