Connect with us


EmGate Wars Continue After Publication of Peer-Reviewed EmDrive Paper



On July 27 Hacked reported that new experimental results on the controversial, “impossible” EmDrive, essentially confirm that the mysterious effect is real. Despite many experimental confirmation from reputable sources, the EmDrive (Electro Magnetic Drive), proposed by aerospace engineer Roger Shawyer, has caused and continues to provoke heated Internet wars marked by considerable animosity. Predictably, the EmGate wars continue even though Shawyer’s paper is now published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Shawyer’s paper, titled “Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe,” has been published on July 10 in the peer-reviewed journal Acta Astronautica (the paper will appear in Volume 116, November–December 2015, Pages 166–174 of the print edition of the journal), with a 5 minute audio/slide presentation with the same title, updated to include the latest test data from the University of Dresden in Germany. The presentation notes:

Published Test Data of eight EmDrive thrusters from five independent sources in four countries confirm EmDrive theory.

The updated audio-visual presentation is not peer-reviewed, which could cause the wrong impression that the paper itself is not peer-reviewed. But Shawyer’s paper has been peer-reviewed like all papers accepted for publication in Acta Astronautica, the prestigious journal of the International Academy of Astronautics, published by Elsevier Press.

“Shawyer spent years having his technology ridiculed by the international space science research community and being called a fraud,” notes International Business Times. The EmDrive proposal was predictably scorned by the smug scientific establishment for allegedly violating the laws of physics, including the conservation of momentum, but Shawyer claims that the measured result – the conversion of electrical energy to thrust without the need to expel any propellant – isn’t incompatible with fundamental physical laws.

The EmDrive Effect is Confirmed by Current Experimental Evidence

EmDriveNow that smug scientists are forced to abandon their ad-hominem attacks based on Shawyer’s lack of peer reviewed articles, they are complaining that the last experimental confirmation of the EmDrive effect, by Martin Tajmar at Dresden University, is not yet peer reviewed. When Tajmar’s work will appear in a peer reviewed journal, they will think of something else to say – smugness is not easily defeated.

Some critics say that Tajmar’s results don’t “confirm” the EmDrive. In some cases, their “arguments” don’t seem very scientific. “My insight is that the EMDrive is complete crap and a waste of time,” CalTech physicist Sean Carroll told io9. “Right there in the abstract this paper says, ‘Our test campaign can not confirm or refute the claims of the EMDrive’, so I’m not sure what the news is. I’m going to spend my time thinking about ideas that don’t violate conservation of momentum.”

Carrol conveniently forgot to quote the next sentence in the abstract, which reads:

Nevertheless, we do observe thrusts close to the magnitude of the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena.

More scientific objections note that Tajmar might have overlooked other possible sources of measurement errors, and new experiments could invalidate his results. But isn’t that always the case?

Physics is an experimental science. Researchers experiment in the laboratory, and at times their experiments produce results that seem at odds with currently accepted theoretical frameworks. In such cases, the experiments should be carefully analyzed and repeated by other teams in other laboratories, to make sure that there are no experimental errors. This is exactly what’s happening now, and the EmDrive effect is confirmed by current experimental evidence.

Further research might uncover experimental errors in the measurements of Tajmar’s and other teams. Otherwise, further studies might reveal that the conflict between theory and experimental results is only apparent and the missing momentum is hidden somewhere for the scientists to find, without requiring new physics. Or, perhaps, EmDrive studies might produce new physics and a Nobel. We don’t presently know how things will turn out, but one thing is certain: in physics, when theory and experiment disagree, experiment always wins, not smug “authorities.”

In science, there is always healthy disagreement between researchers, and that’s precisely how science advances. In this sense, the EmDrive controversy is nothing new. But the peculiar aspect of the EmGate wars is the high level of animosity and “religious” fanaticism demonstrated by some smug scientists and politically motivated “intellectuals” who have never seen a scientific lab. Perhaps the EmGate wars should be seen in the context of a wider cultural war on imagination. In the paper, Shawyer mentions the awesome, world-changing implications of the EmDrive.

Second generation EmDrive offers the best solution for low cost access to space, and for a near term interstellar mission.

Images from Roger Shawyer and Shutterstock.

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

Giulio Prisco is a freelance writer specialized in science, technology, business and future studies.

Feedback or Requests?



  1. Jossarian

    August 6, 2015 at 9:05 am

    Nice article. Indeed, Physics is an experimental science:

    • Giulio Prisco

      August 6, 2015 at 9:23 am

      If Feynman says so, who could disagree? Almost every chapter of the Feynman Lecture on Physics insists that experiment decides.

      • Mirco Romanato

        August 6, 2015 at 2:37 pm

        The final experiment is the market, because people could fool themselves in believing an experiment was successful, but they can not fool their pockets.

        I have hope for the EmDrive, the Mach drive and Rossi’s e-cat.
        They would open the deep space to humankind.

        • Giulio Prisco

          August 6, 2015 at 2:44 pm

          Hi Mirco, good to see you here. I am kind of agnostic about the EmDrive itself. Based on what we know
          at the moment, the effect could be due to systematic experimental
          errors, or it could be real but explainable with known physics, or it
          could require entirely know physics. I am hopeful, but I am not holding my breath.Time and more research will tell.

          This article is mainly about the attitude of the mainstream research community, which I find far too smug (I believe I might have said that a couple of times in the text 🙂

          • mikelorrey

            August 6, 2015 at 6:18 pm

            The results I’ve seen show thrust ten times greater than a pure photon drive, like a laser or light sail, or, a maser drive (microwaves), so the EM Drive is producing more thrust than it should if it were merely shoving microwaves out one end. That amount of thrust is relatively easy to measure, and sources of error are readily excluded by reorienting the test rig on the thrust balance to generate thrusts in different directions. These have been done, so its clear that spurious data in the signal isn’t the source.

        • IgnoranceBeater

          November 7, 2015 at 1:12 pm

          “I have hope for the EmDrive, the Mach drive and *Rossi’s e-cat*.”

          For f- sake.

          A quote attributed to Einstein comes to mind: “”Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”

        • Jimmy Hoffa

          October 2, 2016 at 3:10 am

          i have hope for the emdrive too. i do not have even the slightest hope for the rossi ecat. in fact i believe rossi might be a shyster.

  2. Giulio Prisco

    August 6, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Hi M.Long, thanks for commenting. I totally agree with you that skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific method. An experiment like this, which produce results that seem at dramatic odds with known physics, must be considered with a lot of skepticism, analyzed, and repeated as many times as it takes to confirm the results beyond reasonable doubt and rule out all possible sources of experimental error.

    And that is exactly what is happening. NASA, the Chinese, Tajmar’s and other teams are working on that with all due care and skepticism. Don’t you thing they checked their experimental results many, many times, before presenting them in public and exposing themselves to the (very predictable) attacks of the anti-EmDrive crowd?

    Skepticism is a necessary part of the scientific method – but not smugness. Smugness means bigoted self-righteousness, a feeling of superiority, the certainty of having all the answers, and a propensity to dismissing others’ arguments without scientific consideration, and using gossip and name-calling instead of scientific arguments in debates. That’s the attitude that I’m criticizing.

    As in my comment above, I am kind of agnostic about the EmDrive itself. Based on what we know at the moment, the effect could be due to systematic experimental errors, or it could be real but explainable with known physics (that’s what I tend to consider more likely), or it could require entirely know physics. Time and more research will tell.

    So, this article is not a defense of the EmDrive. It is a defense of the scientific method. The real one, not the smug version.

  3. rogerpenna

    August 6, 2015 at 3:59 pm

    The problem here is that even if the EM Drive works, it probably doesn’t work based on Shawyer’s theories, which ARE incompatible with physics.

    Each one testing it has it´s own theories about why they get small thrusts.

    Also, it´s important to note that the higher thrust levels were not done in vacuum. Whenever someone tests it in vacuum, like NASA and Tajmar, the thrust measurements are much, MUCH smaller.

    • Mirco Romanato

      August 6, 2015 at 4:44 pm

      “The problem here is that even if the EM Drive works, it probably doesn’t work based on Shawyer’s theories, which ARE incompatible with physics.”

      In my experience many people BELIEVE to have a right comprehension of something but, even if they are considered experts and intelligent, they don’t.
      So, when presented with something new, they often fall back to denying reality until reality overcome them.
      The problem is they have a mental model of the phenomenon and they think it is general and complete but it is not.

      When Feynman tell us physicists are not mathematicians and deal with real things and not abstract thinking and formal reasoning, he tell us also physicists usually have some understanding of the end state so they are able to have holes in their initial understanding and get anyway to the end goal they want test.

      This is an advantage when you know the end state of your formula, but it is not when you do not know what the end state is. Then it become a job of brute forcing every solution to check where it will get you. And understanding what the solution tell you about how translate it in something physical.

    • mikelorrey

      August 6, 2015 at 6:20 pm

      Most people’s understanding of conservation is limited to newtonian treatments of it. Real physicists know that there are plenty of examples of real phenomenon that disobey Newtonian conservation. For instance, the orbit of Mercury is WAY off from what Newton predicts it to be, but is entirely in keeping when you factor in Einsteinian Relativistic frame dragging. So too, Mach Effects, derived from General Relativity, comply with conservation when you treat the system thats functioning as including not just the drive itself, but all the far off active mass in the universe that the drive interacts with according to Machs Principle, via inertia, as Woodward has proposed.

      • rogerpenna

        August 6, 2015 at 6:26 pm

        why are you replying to a criticism of Shawyer’s Theory for the way the EM Drive works, by using Mach Effect as an example?

        I said that it´s Shawyer’s Theory that is nonsense, not any propellantless propulsion nor the EM Drive.

        • mikelorrey

          August 6, 2015 at 6:42 pm

          It’s an example, Roger, and there are good reasons to suspect that the EM Drive does what it does due to Mach Effects, especially given the differences in thrust generated when the dielectric unit was removed from the thruster. Reading an interview of Shawyer, its obvious that, whether or not his theory is proven to be the cause of why his Drive works, that he’s created something that does produce thrust. Sonny White has his own theory about the EM Drive as well as Woodward’s METs. That there are thrusts being recorded isn’t nullified by the fact that there are many theories about why it happens.

          • rogerpenna

            August 6, 2015 at 7:16 pm

            I agree that the thrusts aren’t nullified by the fact there are many theories, nor I ever said that.

            I am talking exclusively about Shawyer’s theory here, and his very large thrust results, which were not done in vacuum.

            I also agree that EM Drive may be working due to Woodward’s Mach Effect Theory, which imho is a much more elegant theory anyway than Sonny White’s Quantum Vacuum Foam…

            Are you aware of Dr Heidi Fern’s last findings regarding Mach Effect theory?

          • mikelorrey

            August 6, 2015 at 7:52 pm

            Yes I know Heidi, she works with Jim Woodward. I get regular email updates from them both.
            As for the thrust results: I agree his own results weren’t done in a vacuum, but the tests of the EM Drive done at Eagleworks were done both in air and a vacuum. I agree that Sonny’s quantum theory is both inelegant and likely wrong.

          • rogerpenna

            August 6, 2015 at 8:28 pm

            Yes, I know Eagleworks and Tajmar tested in vacuum. I said that in my first post. And also said that Eagleworks and Tajmar, while getting thrusts, these were orders of magnitude smaller than the ones achieved by Shawyer and the chinese, both of which did not do tests in vacuum.

            It seems you are on the defensive and because of that isn´t even reading my posts.

          • Pathoskeptic

            August 18, 2015 at 5:16 am


    • Jarea

      September 4, 2015 at 2:19 pm

      That is bad signal. It can be that something is leaking and radiating. I would like to see high thrust in vacuum. In fact, i would connect a superconductor and 1 MW microwave generator and put that in a vacuum chamber and see if that thing fly without leak.

  4. mikelorrey

    August 6, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    Great article Giulio. Glad to see some objective reporting about both sides of this debate.

  5. phxmarker mark

    August 7, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Reconsider renormalization and resolution to the vacuum catastrophe and answers to the list of unsolved physics problem THEN make your comments on EM drive.

  6. LetsTryLibertyAgain

    August 7, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    Clarke’s First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
    possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is
    impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    Science does not compel us to accept every theory as true without ample experimental validation, but there is also no room for mindless authoritarianism in science. The facts are the facts, no matter how many prestigious scientists believe otherwise.

    I hadn’t followed the EmDrive, but my initial thought was, “If someone is making claims of spontaneously generated particles from quantum foam, they had better be doing their experiments in a hard vacuum to eliminate the possibility of accelerating particles of gas which wouldn’t be available as a propellant in space.” Some of the comments under this article state that the thrust is much less when the experiment is performed in a vacuum. If true, that’s bad news for the EmDrive. Once the test apparatus is created, how difficult would it be to measure the thrust produced at different atmospheric pressures? I would think that would be very easy, so why are we speculating about this issue?

  7. Brad Arnold

    August 8, 2015 at 10:40 am

    LENR is closely comparable to the EmDrive. I have quotes by experts and loads of experimental data, and it is always the same: you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. Sorry, but the Pons and Fleischmann effect is real.

    “LENR has the demonstrated ability to produce excess amounts of energy, cleanly, without hazardous ionizing radiation, without producing nasty waste.” – Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA Langley Research Center

    “Total replacement of fossil fuels for everything but synthetic organic chemistry.” –Dr. Joseph M. Zawodny, NASA

    “There are many companies now racing to bring Low Energy Nuclear Reaction products to the marketplace. One notable company is Solar Hydrogen Trends, which claims to have accidentally discovered a way to use LENR to produce hydrogen gas from water at the energy equivalent of producing pollution free oil for about $5.00 a barrel. Their hydrogen gas producing reactor has been independently tested by two well known companies, AirKinetics, Inc. and TRC Solutions. Both companies found that the reactor works as promised, and the TRC Solutions PDF report is quite shocking. Solar Hydrogen Trends claims that their technology can be scaled down to power automobiles or scaled up to power jet aircraft, ships, and entire cities.”

    • Pathoskeptic

      August 18, 2015 at 5:14 am

      Same people believing in LENR seem to believe in emdrive. I am not surprised.

      • Brad Arnold

        August 18, 2015 at 5:21 am

        I do not blame you for healthy skepticism, although pathological skepticism is irrational.

        LENR is easily shown to be true, and if you noticed the Solar Hydrogen Trends technology has two respectable detailed verifications. Sometimes I wonder how much proof a person needs. As for the EmDrive, I have also read that it has two respectably third party verifications, but I don’t have that link in front of me, and frankly I doubt it would change your “pathoskeptic” mind anyway, so I won’t go through the effort to track that link down.

        Suffice it to say that I believe both technologies have an over 99% chance of being legitimate. Never the less, I would rather a person be overly skeptical than be a magical thinker (which I am not, as you could tell if you looked up my FB profile).

        • Pathoskeptic

          August 18, 2015 at 6:47 am

          SHT is obvious fraud. No question about that.

          • Brad Arnold

            August 18, 2015 at 10:58 am

            SHT? I am sorry, but I don’t get the reference. I google it, and that didn’t help me either.

          • Pathoskeptic

            August 18, 2015 at 11:01 am

            Your own refrence, Solar Hydrogen Trends, Also known as SH(I)T.

          • Brad Arnold

            August 18, 2015 at 11:05 am

            I now understand. So you think that both AirKinetics, Inc. and TRC Solutions are participating in this fraud? Have you investigated each of these firms? Have you examined their detailed reports? I am finding your undue skepticism to be pathological rather than reasonable or reality based. There is virtually no chance that both firms would participate in such fraud, and their detailed reports are very convincing. It doesn’t make sense why somebody would believe they are “obvious fraud” unless they simply chose to retreat into magical thinking to protect their ego from cognitive dissidence.

        • Pathoskeptic

          August 18, 2015 at 7:07 am

          And pathological skeptisism is just a term invented by promoters of woo, to dismiss critique.

          In today’s world you cannot be too skeptical. Articles like this are not very helpful to increase public understanding of science. On the contrary, their undermine it.

          • Brad Arnold

            August 18, 2015 at 11:01 am

            “In today’s world you cannot be too skeptical.”

            Well that’s your mistake. It is irrational to be too skeptical because you are living in a perpetual state of disbelief. Instead, approach things in a spectrum fashion rather than in a diacodemy fashion. In other words, instead of defaulting to no unless you are overwhelmingly certain it is yes, assign a number between 1 and ten to the strength of your certainty.

            BTW, two respectably and detailed third party affirmations is normally what is required to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 7, 2015 at 1:34 pm

            No, scientifically speaking, you can never be sceptical enough.

            If you’re already satisfied with a 2/10, your not satisfied with science anymore, but with pseudo-science.

            Things like the EM-drive, E-cat, etc. aren’t even worth a 0.5, so it’s really a waste of time and effort to put any belief in it.

            So, even taking your example, the problem with fanfappers and the gullible, is that they think and imagine they see a 7, where they should see a 0,0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001.

          • Brad Arnold

            November 9, 2015 at 9:15 am

            “No, scientifically speaking, you can never be sceptical enough.”

            That is being a pseudo-skeptic. Skeptic – a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.


            All pseudoskeptics will claim to be true skeptics. But regardless of how they define themselves, a pseudoskeptic is a pseudoskeptic if their characteristics and behaviors fit the traits of one:

            Automatically dismisses and denies all data that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy.

            Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 10, 2015 at 1:17 am

            That’s a circular argument. It’s also worthless as an argument (aka; it has no argumentational value).

            Let me use reciprocity (you guys never seem to realise this pnt of a true argument): All fanfappers will claim they are not fanfappers. But regardless of how they define themselves, a fanfapper is a fanfapper if their characteristics and behaviours fit the traits of one: *insert what I think the traits of fanfappers are here*.

            See? I know you guys love this sort of self-affirming philosophical nonsense, but it really doesn’t bring anything worthwhile to the table. Just revert the exact same kind of ‘arguments’, and you can fit it however and whoever you want.

            Let me continue in the same manner you started:

            Making claims of anyone who is being sceptical in a way one doesn’t like, being a ‘pseudosceptic’ or ‘pathosceptic’ is a hallmark of a woo-adept.

            And, just like you did, I’ll give the obligatory link:


            Please note, that I used exactly the same kind of arguments as you did in your posts. If you find them lacking… well, exactly.

          • Brad Arnold

            November 10, 2015 at 7:19 am

            I never once considered that you would admit that you are a pseudoskeptic. Just as once I realized how you judge the veracity of novel claims did I consider you wouldn’t doubt them compulsively, and furthermore discount any evidence to the contrary. You see, people like you think that the default position ought to be doubt, rather than an open mind. Furthermore, you think that a more outlandish claim must be proven beyond what is reasonably possible. Instead, you could be characterized as from Missouri (i.e. The “Show Me” state). Multiple citations of independent verification – it is easy enough to put your hands over your ears and scream “fraud.” Of course it is just a failure of imagination. I believe in evidence, but you believe in skepticism.

          • IgnoranceBeater

            November 10, 2015 at 1:24 pm

            Sigh. No, you still fail to note that a claim of such broad scope is meaningless. It really does not sink through. Look, try to look at it objectively. It’s EXACTLY the same as I would say: “I never once considered that you would admit you are a fanfapper.” I could then add, as some fanfappers here do: “this is irrespective of whether you deny it or not.” Your claim of me being a ‘pseudosceptic’ is just the easy way out. It’s a well know fallacy, in fact.

            Don’t you see how arrogant and useless such a statement is? First of all, one would need to agree that you are a ‘pseudosceptic’ (a term mainly used and invented by what I would call woo-believers, btw ;-)). Even if you don’t, I still would be right that you are, since denying just proves it as well. Thirdly, you would need to accept that I have someho the authority to determine who is what and find that rebuttal enough. Fifthly, one would have to agree to your own criteria for evaluating someone as a ‘pseudoskeptic’. Six; one would have to agree that your own (kind of) arguments, somehow, can not be used in reciprocity. Seven; one would have to accept that a personal opinion which one does not agree with, has merit (at least more then any other mere opinion), even in the absence of any logically valid (or any, in fact) arguments.

            Needless to say – and I know this may not get through your layers of ego – I’m not inclined to agree with you, and you offer no compelling rationale nor substantiate your opinion with valid arguments or evidence. (Yet you claim you believe in the latter).

            Basically, your comment adds nothing. But let me answer in a similar matter. People like you think that the default position ought to be “have an open mind until your brain falls out”, instead of being sceptic. Furthermore, you think that an outlandish claim has enough with even the flimsiest of possibilities of ‘it might be true’.
            Not one shred of evidence, nay, not even an indication, that it has anything remotely to do with a reactionless device – it is also easy enough to put your hands over your ears and scream “pseudosceptic”. Of course it’s a failure of rational thought (aka, gullibility).

            I believe in scientifically validated evidence, but you believe in wishful thinking.

            Note that you might not agree with all what I said here, but neither did I with your assertions and claims. Just as – i presume – you believe in what you say, I believe in what I say. Since you didn’t give any rational arguments for finding a common basis, but instead just gave your opinion, I’m doing the same in this post to you.

            If you ever want to talk about the actual content (aka, arguments) of the subject at hand, feel free. If, however, you continue to think saying ‘pseudosceptic’ is enough rebuttal, forgive me when I do the same with you as a ‘fanfapper’.

          • Martin Alfven Haider

            December 5, 2015 at 7:24 pm

            And yet your own handle is “pathoskeptic”…

        • IgnoranceBeater

          November 7, 2015 at 1:29 pm

          Whenever I see a cold-fusion/EM/E-cat/other pseudo-science believer use the words ‘pathological sceptic’, I’m reminded of “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

          LENR has not shown to be true, if by LERN you mean cold fusion.Which is, btw, always used by believers to obfuscate things, because LENR *does* exist, as long as your talking about classical LERN with muons.

          But that isn’t what you and your ilk mean, and yet you always use the “LENR” indication, just like many of the dubious scientists working on cold fusion have now weaseled out, and now confound things further by mixing the normal, accepted forms of LENR with cold-fusion mumbo-jumbo. You know this as well. Yet, you still use ‘LENR’, when not a hair on your head is thinking about the muon-reactions when using that term, isn’t it?

          As for the ‘third party verifications’… what you guys NEVER seem to understand, that NONE of those verifications have ever demonstrated, proved, indicated, or even made a case for a reactionless drive (or “pushing against virtual magic”). I’ve been repeating this over and over, yet it never, ever, sinks in.

          NONE of the experiments have actually provided anything remotely supporting that the em-drive works as advertised. The ONLY thing those tests did, was eliminating some of the most obvious causes of the force measured. Nothing more, nothing less. Note that even the least plausible cause ‘normal’ cause which could create the measurement of such a tiny force, is still VASTLY more likely than that the drive actually works as advertised.

          Ergo: ALL ‘more normal’ (aka: less exotic) causes have first to be eliminated, before one can even begin to claim a case is being made for a reactionless drive and a necessary rewrite of our physical laws.

  8. Pathoskeptic

    August 18, 2015 at 5:11 am

    I wonder just how silly this article will look in couple of years. Emdrive is so obvious nonsense.

    • adiebolt

      September 23, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      Or people like you will be quoted like the idiots who said that space travel was impossible, or that technology had advanced as far as it was ever going to advance and that science should be abandoned(back in the 1940s).

      You aren’t a skeptic if you believe a phenomena that has yet to be properly explained is simply “obvious nonsense”, that makes you a fundamentalist-theist. It’s kinda scary seeing that such a large group of people claiming to be honest members of the scientific community are so adverse to actually following the scientific method.

      • Martin Alfven Haider

        December 5, 2015 at 7:21 pm

        As obvious here as in the case of the Electric Universe model, an elegant alternative to the Standard model. The same mentality that burned Bruno at the stake not all that long ago.

  9. Al Kyda

    September 6, 2015 at 12:51 am

    Looks a lot like Podkletnov’s gravity shield. That, too, had “experimental” verification. Despite this, somehow the sky in my neighborhood is conspicuously devoid of flying cars and people.

  10. IgnoranceBeater

    November 7, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    Complaining about “animosity”, and then saying: “But the peculiar aspect of the EmGate wars is the high level of
    animosity and “religious” fanaticism demonstrated by some smug
    scientists and politically motivated “intellectuals” who have never seen
    a scientific lab.”

    Well, glad the animosity apparently only comes from one side, or one would have to think this comment isn’t really all that conductive for improving the issue and making things less filled with ‘animosity’.

    That, or one could as well revert it, using reciprocity, and say “But the peculiar aspect of the EmGate wars is the high level of
    animosity and “religious” fanaticism demonstrated by some smug em-fanfappers and politically motivated “pseudo-intellectuals” who have never seen
    a scientific lab.”

    Same thing.

    As for the whole ‘now, it’s in a peer-reviewed paper’; well, that was bound to happen, wasn’t it? Any scientist with a (media-wise) high-p^rofile contention will sooner or later get his paper reviewed somewhere. Even the Chinese in their EM-drive paper had it already ‘peer-reviewed’. It’s a necessary first check to filter out the completely bogus, but getting it published is far from any ‘proof’, as em-fanfappers now seem to indicate. Or as they act as if that was the whole point of the skeptics.

    Of course it doesn’t. In the Chinese ‘peer-reviewed’ paper, they described the em-drive as working through conventional general relativity, something which is utterly, utterly impossible, since CoM IS preserved there, and you simply CAN NOT explain a reactionless drive with those physics. Even White and Tajmar acknowledge this. So…how did it pass peer-review, then? Any phycists worth it’s salt would have known it’s completely impossible and thus a crap, yet it got published in a ‘peer-reviewed’ Chinese magazine.

    Well… doesn’t that tell you something about about different qualities of peer-review, and peer-reviewed papers and magazines?

    It’s a needed filter, yes, as a first step. It doesn’t mean anything has been proven with it getting published – certainly not in these days, where everyone wants a scoop. No-one (well, not a skeptic, at least) ever made this into a breaking point, as this article now implies. It’s a pointing out that even that first step was missing, nothing more, nothing less.

    In contrast, many fanfappers were like: “a peer-reviewed paper means nothing, we don’t need it to prove it works”. Those same fanfappers now herald the fact that it does get into a peer-reviewed magazine as an enormous victory, proving, or at least substantiating, their case. Well, which is it? One can’t have it both ways.

    And then I’m not even talking about *what* exactly it is that is getting endorsed. Because, if the magazine (and its peer-reviewers) are worth their salt this time, at least they will put a caveat in there. I strongly suspect they will ok the scientific experimentation of the device, which is normal, since it *is* being scientifically researched, but they won’t endorse any contention or implied reasoning the force measured is due to a reactionless device, or his ‘pushing against virtual plasma’.

    Of course, this will be lost again to the fanfappers out there, who, no doubt, will simply say the magazine agreed with the ‘proof’ that the EM-drive works as advertised.

  11. IgnoranceBeater

    November 11, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    Rest assured, I’ve been pounded by your fellow em/lenr/pseudo-science believer Alainco with myriads of links to all your ‘sources’ for LENR. More than 80% were links to blogs, fora, and excerpts of books of believers, for believers. This does NOT constitute scientific evidence, nomatter how much you may wish for it.

    Of the more serious ones (papers), the vast majority were either not peer-reviewed, or could not be reliably reproduce their findings, or couldn’t demonstrate conclusively it dealt with cold fusion (aka, emissions neutrons, or isotopes in the waste). Even for those that did, most of them did not have a control mechanism (aka, the prime example being SPAWAR, which is ALWAYS linked to by your guys, but their findings are and remain totally inconclusive, since they did *not* bother to use a control mechanism to see what the direction and source of the neutrons were. I’ve said this again and again, but you guys simply do not seem to comprehend. This makes those findings , scientifically speaking, worthless. What remains are a few papers which claim they’ve encountered sporadic ‘excess heat’, which, in turn, can’t be reliably reproduced, and isn’t a definitive or even compelling indication of cold fusion in the first place.

    what yopu guys NEVER seem to comprehend, is that the tests – the few of them left after scientific scrutiny are so meagre in substnce, that they offer NO vlidation for the claim made.

    The exact same is happening with the em-drive. you do it now. You say: “This article whose thread we are commenting on refers to a peer reviewed paper verifying the Em drive.” No, it’s NOT.

    This statement is twofold wrong. First of all, the article is not just ‘commenting on a peer reviewed article’, it is implicitly or explicitly subscribing to the idea the cause is a reactionless drive (or pushing against virtual magic, pardon, plasma). Furthermore, NONE of the tests have actually *veryfied* the emdrive works as advertised.

    And that’s somethign you guys nevr, ever seem to comprehend. You’re just blind to it.

    The tests did NOT prove, nor verified, nor indicated, nor made a case for, the emdrive. as purported to work.

    After all, it’s clear no one is claiming the emdevice is a thermal expansion of the wires for instance, is it? Or some other artefact or measure-error. If one *WERE*, you wouldn’t need a bullock ‘pushing against virtual plasma’ confabulation otherwise, would you? Thus, in essence, one claims it is a reactionless device (or equivalent). In that case, the emdrive has certainly NOT been verified, nor proven, nor anything else.

    The ONLY thing one has proven thusfar, is that measure a tiny force in a complex setup, where they haven’t yet determined the exact cause of. Nothing more, nothing less. IF one would think about it rationally and logical one, would realise it is FAR more likely that a far less exotic cause is responsible, then a reactionless device. Yet, somehow, the media and fanfappers alike, think the most sensible thing to do now, is to believe the LEAST (by a vast margin!) likely cause is the actual cause. In fact, they (as you here demonstrated), even believe it has been ‘verified’ or ‘a case has been made’ for it. That’s absurd.

    Nothing of the sort and far from it.

    Let me give an analogy for you to make the difference clear. I claim the force they measured is due to dragon-magic coming from my magical dragon in my garage. I’m now saying: look, THREE independent labs have *confirmed* that force: this is clear evidence (or it has been ‘verified’) that my magical dragon exist?

    Don’t you see the obvious logical error in that?

    No IT HAS NOT. And neither has the emdrive.

    Now, realise there is EXACTLY as much evidence the force is due to a reactionless device as there is it’s due to dragon-magic, and you’ll realise how absurd the claim is that the test have demonstrated the veracity of that claim.

    Just like you, I’m convinced you simply won’t change your mind, nomatter how I point out that the ‘evidence’ you think you have, is no evidence at all, at least not in any scientific sense. That is what a fanfapper does; they don’t change their opinion
    based upon scientific evidence, instead they simply maintain their default
    pseudo-scientific and wishful-thinking argumentative rhetorical stance.

  12. phxmarker mark

    December 6, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    The theory behind the EM-Drive is already known. Electric Universe and Haramein’s Unified Theory explain it. And NASA’s latest tests confirm the thrust…

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


Encrypgen Beta Launch Sends Token Soaring



Encrypgen (DNA) provides customers and partners best-in-class, next generation, blockchain security for protecting, sharing and re-marketing genomic data. Although the company has only been around for a few years, it appears to be a major player in the genomic blockchain security space. Security breaches at and privacy concerns at 23andMe have created a void that Encrypgen hopes to fill.

Price Action

Earlier this week, Encrypgen reached a significant milestone after launching its Gene-Chain beta platform. DNA token is soaring by 20% since the announcement on Wednesday evening.

Encrypgen Price Chart

Encrypgen is far ahead of schedule since the initial expectation was the end of August. The company expects the final live version of the Gene-Chain to be available by the end of September. DNA is a utility token so platform usage will determine its value. DNA is inching its way closer to the finish line and traders appear to be backing it.

Since August 1, DNA is one of the best performing ERC20 tokens. I created a list of the top 50 ERC20 tokens and analyzed their returns since August 1. None of them have a positive return. In comparison, DNA has generated a 7% return during the same period. While the return is negligible compared to the fall 2017, it’s still a positive development. Especially since the price rise coincides with a major development milestone.

Encrypgen Value Proposition

Genetics is playing an increasingly pivotal role in the world of drug discovery. Researchers use genetic data to help them understand how diseases start and how they progress. One of the main reasons that Encrypgen caught my attention is that it is attempting to fill a real world void as a few of the largest non-crypto companies are facing serious issues. Two of those companies are and 23andMe. is the most popular genealogical and family tree tracking company. Unfortunately, it appears that popularity comes at a cost. In December, a server on the company’s RootsWeb service exposed a file that has usernames, email addresses and passwords of 300,000 registered users. The stolen information was then leaked and posted online in plain text.

Another popular company in the industry, 23andMe, has its own issues regarding privacy. Lawmakers and consumers are expressing concern regarding privacy after a consumer submits their genetic test to the company. This is especially true in light of the recent $300 million collaboration deal that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) struck with 23andMe.

Encrypgen’s Gene-Chain platform appears to be the answer to the problem. Consumers will be able to upload their genetic data via Encrypgen’s secure portal which then goes into the company’s database. That data will then be secured with the company’s Gene-Chain. One of the most interesting parts is that consumers get paid when researchers want to purchase their data. According to a recent article from Reuters, consumers can expect an average payment of $130 each time that researchers buy their data. This is an excellent way for consumers to generate passive income.


Investors need to keep their eyes on Encrypgen as the company finalizes its Gene-Chain platform. With the recent price action, the coming catalysts, and the compelling value proposition, the DNA token may be one to begin accumulating.

Featured image courtesy of Shutterstock. 

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

5 stars on average, based on 1 rated posts

Feedback or Requests?

Continue Reading


Biotech Dominates July Penny Stock Picks



July brings new opportunities to trade penny stocks, according to the Investopedia top 10 penny stocks to watch. Biotechnology stocks in particular are poised for a breakout. Biotechnology funds broke out of the long-term basing pattern in June, forcing rotational buying pressure, which bodes well for the low-priced sub-sector, with many penny stocks ready to hit multi-year highs.

At the same time, the tech sector is getting sold with equal force in a profit-taking exercise that could deliver a period of under-performance for the sector’s lower-priced issues.

June’s biotechnology picks drew strong buying interest, led by ImmunoGen, Inc.’s 48% advance to a 52-week high. Small China stocks also posted strength, as China Commercial Credit, Inc. gained close to 35%. China Commercial Credit and June’s three biotech picks return to the July top penny stock list, joined by six new penny stocks.

1. ImmunoGen Inc. (IMGN)

Source: Investopedia

ImmunoGen, a provider of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for the treatment of cancer, jumped from number four in June to the top spot in July.

The stock posted a 12-year high at $20.25 in 2013 and sold off to $5.34 in December 2014. A recovery in 2015 stalled less than a point below the prior peak, creating a decline that continued into an 18-year low at $1.51 in November 2016.

Buyers took over in 2017, generating an uptick that reversed at the 2014 resistance approximately three weeks ago. In June, the stock broke out and made the top 10 list for the first time. It could end up in the $8.00 to $10.00 price zone.

ImmunoGen creates targeted cancer therapeutics using its proprietary ADC technology. The company’s candidate, mirvetuximab soravtansine, is in a Phase 3 trial for an ovarian cancer, and is in Phase 1b/2 testing in combination regimens for earlier-stage disease.

The technology is used in Roche’s Kadcyla, in three other clinical-stage ImmunoGen product candidates, and in programs in development by Amgen, Bayer, Biotest, CytomX, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi and Takeda.

2. China Commercial Credit, Inc. (CCCR)

Source: Investopedia

China Commercial Credit Inc. (CCCR), which provides business loans and loan guarantee services to small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), farmers and individuals in China’s Jiangsu Province, jumped from number five in June to second place in July.

The company went public on the U.S. exchanges at $6.50 in August 2013.

The stock experienced a downtrend that bottomed out at 25 cents in February 2016 and began an upward trend that stalled at $3.20 in September. The stock hit a higher low in March 2017 before recovering, testing the 2016 high. A breakout should bring broad buying interest that could support a continued upside that could double the price by year’s end.

The company was founded in 2008 and provides business loans and loan guarantee services to small-to-medium enterprises, farmers and individuals in China’s Jiangsu Province.

3. CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc. (CBAY)

Source: Investopedia

CymaBay Therapeutics Inc. (CBAY), a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing therapies to treat specialty and orphan diseases, returns from the June list, where it ranked number 9. The stock rallied to an all-time high at $13.78 in February 2015, then suffered a steep downtrend that continued into the first quarter of 2016. The stock then dropped to an all-time low at 82 cents before bouncing to $3.04 in April, a yearly high, ahead of a pullback that continued into the November low at $1.15.

The stock broke above the 2016 high in February 2017, reaching a two-year high at $4.81.

Net loss for the 2017 first quarter was $5.4 million, or ($0.20) per diluted share, compared to $6.8 million, or ($0.29) per diluted share in the first quarter of 2016. Net loss in the 2017 first quarter was $1.4 million lower compared to the prior year period, primarily due to the recognition of collaboration revenue in 2017.

The rally has now reached a two-year high, attracting buying interest that could move into double digits.

4. Peiris Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (PIRS)

Source: Investopedia

Pieris Pharmaceuticals Inc., a, clinical-stage biotechnology company committed to providing solutions for oncology, respiratory disease and other therapeutic areas, moved from June’s 7th spot to July’s 4th spot. The stock launched on the OTC market in 2014, trading between $2.00 and $4.25 before falling to $1.26 in January 2016. It ground sideways through November, then tested the first-quarter low ahead of a January 2017 breakaway gap that has drawn steady buying interest. The rally gathered momentum in early May after announcing a partnership with AstraZeneca PLC and is currently testing the 2015 high, the all-time high.

The company’s product includes immuno-oncology multi-specifics tailored for the tumor microenvironment, an inhaled Anticalin protein to treat uncontrolled asthma as well as a half-life-optimized Anticalin protein to treat anemia. Anticalin proteins, proprietary to Pieris, are a class of therapeutics validated in the clinic and partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. Anticalin is a registered trademark of Pieris.

5. 22nd Century Group, Inc. (XXII)

Source: Investopedia

22nd Century Group, Inc. (XXII), a plant biotechnology company that is a provider of tobacco harm reduction and development of proprietary hemp/cannabis strains, broke out above multi-year resistance near $1.50 in 2013, rallying to a record high a few months later at $6.36. The stock then began a persistent decline through August 2015 before finding support at 56 cents, followed by a bounce to $1.75.

The stock has traded within those boundaries for 22-months, bouncing at support three times and reversing at resistance in equal measure. The price returned to that level a fourth time, improving odds for a breakout that could double the price in the year’s second half.

22nd Century Group is a plant biotechnology company focused on genetic engineering and plant breeding that allows the increase or decrease of the level of nicotine in tobacco plants and the level of cannabinoids in cannabis plants. The company’s main goal in tobacco is to reduce the harm caused by smoking. The main goal in cannabis is to develop proprietary hemp/cannabis strains for new medicines and agricultural crops.

The stock last month joined the Russell Microcap Index, when FTSE Russell reconstituted its U.S. and global equity indexes. Membership in the Russell Microcap Index means automatic inclusion in the appropriate growth and value style indexes. FTSE Russell determines membership for its Russell indexes primarily by objective, market-capitalization rankings and style attributes.

6. Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. (CVRS)

Source: Investopedia

Corindus Vascular Robotics, Inc. (CVRS), a developer of precision vascular robotics, returned to the national market in 2015 following a trading halt, topping out around $4.50 and starting a decline that continued to reach new lows in January 2017 when it bottomed at around 40 cents. Since that time, the price activity has been constructive, with high volume rally bursts moving the stock into 2016 resistance at $1.75. The bullish behavior has created a cup and handle basing pattern that points to an uptrend into the 2015 high following a breakout.

Revenue for the first quarter of 2017 was $0.8 million compared to $1.1 million for the same period in the prior year. The decrease is due mainly to the deferral of system revenue associated with a future obligation to upgrade multiple customer units from the company’s CorPath 200 System to the CorPath GRX System.

The company installed three new CorPath Systems in the first quarter of 2017, increasing its total installed base to 48 CorPath Systems.

Gross loss was $1.1 million for the 2017 first quarter, compared to a gross profit of $0.03 million for the 2016 first quarter. The cost of revenues for the first 2017 quarter continued to include the effect of under-utilization of production facilities and the cost of CorPath GRX System upgrades that installed pursuant to pre-existing contractual arrangements.

The company continues to expect the full year 2017 revenue to be in the range of $13.

7. RADA Electronic Industries, Ltd. (RADA)

Source: Investopedia

RADA Electronic Industries, Ltd. (RADA), a defense electronics system of advanced electronic systems for airborne and land applications, fell into a multi-decade decline after it joined the Nasdaq in the 1990s. The stock ground out a series of lower highs and lows through January 2016’s all-time 54-cent low.

The stock spent 16 months moving sideways in a narrow basing pattern before turning higher in May 2017 and rallying back to 2016 resistance at $1.78. The bullish activity completed a cup and handle breakout pattern that could point to a fast rally into the August 2015 gap between $3.70 and $2.50.

Revenues totaled $4.7 million in the 2017 first quarter, up 91% compared to revenues of $2.5 million in the first quarter of 2016.

Gross profit totaled $1.7 million in the first 2017 quarter of 2017, a gross margin of 35.7%, compared to gross profit of $6,000 (gross margin of 0.2%) in the 2016 first quarter.

Operating income was $0.4 million in the first 2017 quarter compared to an operating loss of $1 million in the 2016 first quarter.

Net income attributable to RADA’s shareholders in the 2017 first quarter was $0.4 million, $0.02 per share, versus a net loss of $1.8 million, or $0.23 per share, in the 2016 first quarter.

8. ChromaDex, Corp. (CDXC)

Source: Investopedia

ChromaDex, Corp. (CDXC), a provider of proprietary health, wellness and nutritional ingredients, that creates science-based solutions to dietary supplement, food and beverage, skin care, sports nutrition and pharmaceutical products, went public in April 2016 at $4.70. The stock rallied to an all-time high at $6.18 in May, then fell one month later to $2.46 in a single session, eventually posting a lower December low. It tested that support level in April 2017, then turned sharply higher, now testing 2017 resistance at $3.80. A breakout could point to a significant upside, taking the stock back to last year’s high.

For the first quarter of 2017, ChromaDex reported net sales of $4.4 million, a decrease of 39% compared to the same period of 2016, due mainly to decreased sales in its ingredients business segment, as a result of dropping its largest customer for fiscal year 2016. The ingredients segment created net sales of $2.1 million for Q1 2017, a decline of 55%, compared to the same 2016 period.

The net loss attributable to common stock holders for Q1 2017 was $1.9 million or ($0.05) per share versus a net income of $0.3 million or $0.01 per share for Q1 2016.

In May, the company announced the closing of the $16.4 million second tranche of the strategic investment of up to $25 million led by Hong Kong business leader Li Ka-shing.

Li Ka-shing has invested in many innovative companies in the last decade, including Facebook, Spotify, DeepMind, Siri, Impossible Foods and Modern Meadow. The new investment will support future ChromaDex developments in the global marketplace.

The $16.4 million second tranche follows an initial $3.5 million tranche that closed on April 27, 2017.

9. Safe Bulkers, Inc. (SB)

Source: Investopedia

Safe Bulkers, Inc. (SB), a player in the hot and cold dry bulk shipping sector, topped out at $11.48 in March 2014, then entered a downtrend reaching an all-time low at 30 cents in January 2016. A recovery wave in November stalled at $2.38, followed by sideways action that has completed a small-scale cup and handle breakout pattern. A buying spike over $2.60 can be expected to set the upside into action, supporting a rally that could surpass $5.00.

The company declared a cash dividend of $0.50 per share on its 8.00% Series B, Series C and Series D Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Shares for the period from April 30, 2017 to July 29, 2017.

This is the 16th consecutive cash dividend declared on the company’s Series B Preferred Shares, the 13th cash dividend declared on its Series C Preferred Shares and the 12th cash dividend declared on its Series D Preferred Shares since their respective commencement of trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

10. Ballard Power Systems, Inc. (BLDP)

Source: Investopedia

Ballard Power Systems, Inc. (BLDP) is a provider of clean energy products that reduce customer costs and risks, and helps customers solve challenges in their fuel cell programs. The stock reached an all-time high at $144.95 in 2000 before falling into a downtrend lasting more than 12 years, sending the stock to an all-time low at 56 cents. A 2013 upward trend continued through 2014, hitting an 8-year high at $8.38, followed by a correction that’s now returned to 2015 resistance at $3.10. A breakout could catch fire, pushing the stock to a test of its 2014 high.

Total revenue was $22.7 million in the quarter, an increase of 39% from growth in both power products and technology solutions.

Gross margin was 42% in the quarter, an improvement of 22 points due to a shift in product mix toward higher margin technology solutions and heavy duty motive for the China market, including the establishment of a production line in Yunfu, China for the manufacture and assembly of FCvelocity-9SSL fuel cell stacks.

Cash operating costs were $10 million in the quarter, a 6% increase due to higher research and product development expenditures as well as a stronger Canadian dollar relative to the U.S. dollar, since a significant amount of cost is denominated in Canadian dollars.

Low-priced biotech stocks have risen following a long slumber, with steady buying interest likely to continue. This group should offer a variety of profitable penny stock plays during the quiet summer trading season, while low-priced stocks in other sectors move into narrow trading ranges.

Featured image from Shutterstock.

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

3.9 stars on average, based on 8 rated postsLester Coleman is a veteran business journalist based in the United States. He has covered the payments industry for several years and is available for writing assignments.

Feedback or Requests?

Continue Reading


Last Week’s Top Cannabis Stock Winners And May’s Stocks To Watch



Medicinal and recreational cannabis continues to spur investment in marijuana-based pharmaceuticals.

Several publicly traded cannabis stocks gained more than 5% this past week, some of which have market capitalizations exceeding $50 million, according to Investopedia. The Solactive North American Medical Marijuana Index, which tracks the medical marijuana sector, gained 1.5% for the week.

Cannabis stocks also trade on other exchanges, such as the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq and over the counter.

Following are last week’s five top performers, followed by a list of four cannabis stocks to watch for the month of May.

Insys Therapeutics Inc., Nasdaq: INSY

Insys Therapeutics, a Chandler, Arizona-based specialty pharmaceutical company, was one of the week’s top performers, gaining more than 11%. The stock was boosted by Wednesday’s announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the Syndros product label. Syndros, the company’s lead product, is a liquid, oral dronabinol (synthetic THC) solution for treating nausea that is chemotherapy induced, and for treating anorexia related to AIDS. The approval means the company can now market the product commercially.

Insys Therapeutics, Inc. also markets Subsys, a sublingual fentanyl spray for cancer pain in opioid-tolerant cancer patients in the U.S.

The company is also developing Cannabidiol Oral Solution, a synthetic cannabidiol for catastrophic epilepsy syndromes in children. It is also developing other products, such as dronabinol line extensions and sublingual spray products.

Insys has posted flat revenues for the last three years, but its operating income fell at the end of 2016 as the company invested more in research. Gross profit has improved over the last three years.

Insys did not post the biggest gain in the past week, but it is the only one of this week’s top five winners that is also listed on Investopedia’s cannabis stocks to watch for March.

Marapharm Ventures Inc., OTC: MRPHF

Marapharm Ventures Inc., a Kelowna, Canada-based medical marijuana company, gained more than 40% this week after the company announced on Tuesday it will apply for a recreational marijuana license in Nevada. The following day, the company received approval for building permits for modular structures. On Thursday, the company announced that Nevada gave final approval to grow and sell cannabis.

Formerly known as Capital Auction Market Inc., the company serves the medical and recreational marijuana industry in Canada and the U.S.

Marapharm applied to Health Canada for a production and sales license three years ago and has passed the necessary security clearances, according to the Daily Marijuana Observer. The application is currently in the screening process. Health Canada advised the company in September it seeks to amend its application to allow for new regulations.

Marapharm’s common shares are traded in Canada under the MDM symbol and in the U.S. and on the Canadian Securities Exchange under the symbol MRPHF on the OTC. In Europe, it trades under the symbol 2M0 on the FSE.

MMJ Phytotech Ltd., ASX: MMJ

MMJ Phytotech Ltd., trading on the Australian Stock Exchange, gained more than 5% for the week, closing at $0.365 AUD Friday. Australia is developing its own medical marijuana program after legalizing it in November of 2016. MMJ is one of several ASX listed cannabis companies.

Shares of Australian companies involved in the production and research of medicinal marijuana have soared more than 130 percent on average in Sydney this year, exceeding the growth rate of peers in the U.S. and Canada by six times, according to Bloomberg. The surge was also sparked by the country easing restrictions on cannabis imports to treat illnesses from cancer to epilepsy.

MMJ Phytotech has focused on becoming a direct supplier to the growing Canadian recreational and medical and markets, which are estimated to have a combined value of C$8 to C$9 billion by 2024.

MMJ holds one of 41 licenses issued by Health Canada.

The company controls operations across the complete medicinal cannabis value chain through three business units.

Tetra Bio-Pharma Inc., OTC: TBPMF

Tetra Bio-Pharma saw shares jump more than 20% for the week. One factor was an agreement signed Wednesday with Panag Pharma to develop and commercialize a pair of cannabinoid based formulations for treating pain and inflammation.

The filing of a patent in ocular disease combined with the patents from Panag in the ocular space indicates strong revenue potential, according to the company.

Tetra Bio-Pharma will have exclusive access to sell the topical and ocular drug in North America with the right of first negotiation outside the U.S. and Canada. The company will also have the right of first negotiation for future cannabinoid-based products.

Tetra Bio-Pharma will work with Panag to ensure a successful development leading to marketing authorization. Panag will continue to focus on the development of new products for unmet medical needs while Tetra will take the lead in commercializing the products.

Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nasdaq: ZYNE

Zynerba Pharmaceuticals Inc., another player in the cannabinoid space, finished the week with about a 5% gain.

The company develops and markets synthetic cannabinoid therapeutics for transdermal delivery. The products address the symptoms of patients with fibromyalgia, epilepsy, peripheral neuropathic pain, osteoarthritis and Fragile X syndrome.

Zynerba is developing ZYN001 and ZYN002, the first being a THC pro-drug patch that provides transdermal THC delivery for fibromyalgia and peripheral neuropathic pain, the second being a synthetic CBD gel that provides transdermal, non-psychoactive CBD delivery for osteoarthritis, epilepsy and Fragile X syndrome.

Top four cannabis stocks to watch in May.

1. AbbVie Inc. (ABBV)

AbbVIe is a pharmaceutical company that already has a cannabis-based drug on the market. The FDA approved Marinol, a drug that helps alleviate vomiting or nausea for chemotherapy patients. It also helps AIDS patients who have lost their desire to eat.

ABBV has increased revenues for the past four years. Its operating income has also steadily increased.

AbbVie concentrates almost exclusively on U.S. markets, which represents some degree of risk. Most pharmaceuticals market globally. Should the domestic market falter, ABBV could see a drop in value.

2. Scott’s Miracle-Gro Company, SMG

Known for its lawn and garden products, Scotts Miracle-Gro is developing products for cannabis growers, including pesticides for use on marijuana plants. The products can be used to grow medicinal marijuana.

The stock has experienced a sideways pattern since December 2016. Should the stock find support at its 200-day moving average, recovery is possible.

Revenues surged in the quarter ended April 1, 2017, as did the company’s income. But given the drop in price recently, this could be a stock to watch rather than buy for the time being.

3. Corbus Pharmaceuticals, CRBP

Corbus Pharmaceuticals stock has been up and down over the past year. The company’s marijuana-based drugs are in clinical trials. Resunab, designed to treat sclerosis, has shown promising trials.

The stock tends to dip right before trial results are announced, then rally when results are positive. The company is currently testing Resunab for treating cystic fibrosis. The pessimism/optimism pattern will continue as this drug is tested yet again.

The company has posted negative operating income, with revenues close to zero. It relies on the success of a single drug.

4. Insys Therapeutics Inc. Nasdaq, INSY

Insys Therapeutics is the only one of the cannabis stocks to watch that was listed among last week’s top gainers.

As investors sober up about the marijuana craze, the reality of using it in medicines will set in. Like other sources for drugs, cannabis offers positive prospects and some failures.

The drop in share price for some cannabis stocks indicates the companies have to deliver soon on the promise of medical cannabis.

Investors are advised not to act based on enthusiasm for marijuana, and to pay attention to drug trial results.

Important: Never invest (trade with) money you can't afford to comfortably lose. Always do your own research and due diligence before placing a trade. Read our Terms & Conditions here. Trade recommendations and analysis are written by our analysts which might have different opinions. Read my 6 Golden Steps to Financial Freedom here. Best regards, Jonas Borchgrevink.

Rate this post:

Important for improving the service. Please add a comment in the comment field below explaining what you rated and why you gave it that rate. Failed Trade Recommendations should not be rated as that is considered a failure either way.
0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this.

3.9 stars on average, based on 8 rated postsLester Coleman is a veteran business journalist based in the United States. He has covered the payments industry for several years and is available for writing assignments.

Feedback or Requests?

Continue Reading

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

A part of CCN is Neutral and Unbiased and its team members have pledged to reject any form of advertisement or sponsorships from 3rd parties. We will always be neutral and we strive towards a fully unbiased view on all topics. Whenever an author has a conflicting interest, that should be clearly stated in the post itself with a disclaimer. If you suspect that one of our team members are biased, please notify me immediately at jonas.borchgrevink(at)