TDarren - first thanks for your views and opinions. Being able to see both sides (Bearish and Bullish) I have found to always be very valuable and important in making an informed decision. That said I have had some difficulty following all the arguments and points you have been making (since they are spread over multiple threads, one of which I never got the change to read before it was gone) so I wanted to see if I have the "gist" of the arguments you are making correct.
If I follow you correctly it's your belief that:
1. The preclinical data being presented is very weak, and the BSD is only likely to work in very specific injuries (like stab and gunshot wounds - piercing injuries for us laymen) and won't work in more common injuries like those in car accidents (crushing injuries for us laymen). So it's not that it can't or won't work, just that it will just be super narrow in indication?
If so this seems to make sense to me from a common sense/experience standpoint. After all anyone that has broken a thumb and also partialy severed a thumb (yes I'm a clutz) will tell you the break causes a LOT more swelling.
2. The scafold is highly unlikely to work in cronic cases since it needs to be installed in a very narrow window after the initial injury?
I have a few friends that are doctors who I had take a quick look and they also came to this same conclusion and gave me similar warning.
3. The market for the specific type of acute injury that invivo would be able to address with the devise given the 2 limitation above is significantly smaller then people think (something in the hundreds of millions a year and not billions range).
Is that all a fair and accurate summary or am I missing an argument or key elements of the argument? Also would love to understand more about what in the science from the preclinicals has you so concerned to be able to research and pick the brains of those in my circle a bit more..
I'll admit I'm not a doctor or all that strong in biology. However given that they won the 2011 apple award from the Journal of Neuroscience for their work I would have to think there is some pretty decent science/credibility here. I also like the additions of Ed With and Brian Hess (who I have to think wouldn't show up if there wasn't something here to go on).. I also liked the fact that Fidelity who has a pretty good track record in the biotech space is in for almost 2million shares and I can't imagine they'd do that if the science wasn't fairly sound (since unlike me they do have experts at hand).
Please don't take that to mean I think your wrong or anything, just trying to figure out how to connect all the dots to better make my own decision on what to do.