Has anyone heard? Are they releasing via periodical or just releasing data? Curious if anyone has spoken to IR. I have not seen or heard anything since Jan completion with either a PR or in the financial statements. Would be nice to know the "plan" for release.
Rick & Izof
I am a medical device professional and familiar with protocols inherent in releasing results of studies etc.
I have no inside info and if I did I certainly wouldn't release it.
However, using the deductive powers which seem to indicate that there will be monumental news released next week which should propel this stock skywards. Please DO NOT take my statements a reason to buy or sell the stock.
If your interested in what I'm doing, I'm buying all I can for the last month.
I'm also sure that you are aware that studies are discontinued before the end point if the results are negative and if the studies are negative that news is released immediately.
Did you make some kind of inference from that (if true)? Are we supposed to do so? Such things happen all the time in trials. DIfficult to imagine how an anti-inflammatory could do that unless it reduced inflammation and helped his diabetes and lowered his blood sugar thus.
The 10/26/2012 press release correcting the "half way" report from "Flint" noted a high percent of persons with diabets ... taking "Metformin" to REDUCE BLOOD SUGAR ... responded favorably (lowered C-RP) to Anatabloc.
If Anatabloc helps their diabetes by lowering their inflammation level, then it stands to reason that their blood sugar might lower to artificially low levels if they no longer, then, need the Metformin (or as much of it). Of course such a subject can't be "adjusted" for Metformin and remail in the study, one might guess, because the only variable you want in subjects is A'bloc, yes or no.
The guy's "too low" blood sugar may be the best medical news he's gotten in a long time.
Again and AGAIN: the peer review process is not under their control. When its DONE, ITS DONE. How stupid would it be fore them to put out PR saying something will happen "by time X" when the process is hidden from them and out of their control??????
How do I know "hidden" and "out of their control"?? Because if it weren't, then it wouldn't be a bona fide scientific peer review process.
As far as some other kind of release of data, in response to constant whining about it they tried that, and it did not go well, as you well know.
I PREY TO GOD they learned to just wait for the real thing. Anything less is scientifically meaningless anyway, and right now only science counts. The more science and less just "PR" from here on out, the better.
Let Adam Effstein critique the peer reviewed science from now on. I have little doubt he will, but he will make an idiot of himself when he does.
In the mean time thousands of us have the benefit of this wonderful "drug" which can be sold as a supplement; the co. makes a bit of cash off it; and thanks to the continual attacks on Star we can lower our cost bases (or buy in new for cheap).
First off jeez, just asking the question if anyone spoke with IR.
Second you misunderstand. Im NOT asking for a DATE. Im asking if anyone knows even what their PLAN is. (Periodical publicaition like Thyroid, data release, etc) We have known for quite a while that Star is planning on publishing the data for Thyroid, but we have no idea what the PLAN for release is for flint.
That is ENTIRELY reasonable and very common to know ahead of time after a study is completed. If the answer is "we are still determining our course of action" then fine, Im just inquiring if some had spoke with IR and if they had stated what their method of release would be.
Rick, that's a good question. Not being a scientist I wonder if the results might be relative to the other studies? If they are drafting some sort of review summary would the "Flint" study support the findings of the other studies?
The only thing that counts is the peer reviewed study, and nothing but that data from that can/will be considered in making that review.
I have excpected and stated often that the peer review of Flint would take a long time because of the most interesting part: the recording of "other clinical indications" of efficacy (if indeed those are part of the peer review). Those would be patients' reports of, and especially the doctors' assessments of, (rather than C-RP values) the many and various benefits such as we've all seen.
For example, just think (if these are part of the formal report) what it would mean when doctors report that THEY OBSERVED a reduction in arthritic joint swelling in X number of patients; a reduction of asthmatic lung sounds in Y patients; improvements in rosacea in Z patients; etc.
IF that is part of what the formal report will contain, tabulating and assessing all that will be very time consuming. ... and very well worth the wait. It would END all the BS, here, there, and everywhere, from big s#!t attackers like Effstein to the two bit tivos and nakadodos.
I can't predict if such reports will be a part of the peer reviewed material, but I would expect so. And if so, WOW.