% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ChromaDex Corporation Message Board

  • roxyroo73 roxyroo73 Apr 17, 2013 10:07 AM Flag


    CDXC was supposed to announce NR by Q1 - were they not? I don't mind them taking precautions in light of the Merck incident. Some study numbers should have come out though already which is a little worrisome. I.e. CDXC would not have said they were going to announce NR by Q1 if they did not complete a study by then (based on their concept of proving the ingredient first before marketing it). Is it possible the study was all of a sudden extended? I doubt it because they are supposed to have predefined start and end dates before they even start. Perhaps the Merck findings invalidated the study and they needed to start over, delaying things. This is all speculation, but why do I need to speculate on news? I.e. Some news would be nice. I'm speculating enough owning the stock, to have to speculate on news too is a little too much for me.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I actually see this as a positive. Why would the company continue to spend scarce funds on a tiny study, in comparison to the one by Merck, if the FDA is aware of the results of the Merck study, and would as likely approve a compound that modulates the same target proteins, but more strongly, as it is to approve an inhale-able, injectable, over the counter, form of generic Oxycontin?

      • 1 Reply to sharonlimrick
      • Luckily Frank released his latest comments about NR well after the Merck findings. In which I quote the last sentence on the earnings release March 29th: "Moreover, we were able to acquire what we believe is the most relevant and valuable IP pertaining to the commercialization of nicotinamide riboside, an ingredient that may prove to be one of the best opportunities yet for ChromaDex to create shareholder value."

        This sentence effectively being the conclusion of the earnings release must be significant to CDXC. How can CDXC obviously not care about the Merck study since the Merck study was reported significantly earlier than the latest earnings release? To me, this means either CDXC is wrong or you are wrong (I.e. when it comes to whether the Merck study has any relation to CDXC). I don't believe CDXC is living in a bubble especially considering how many boards they are a part of these days. I.e. Something as important as what you make it sound like would not just miss their radar would it? I guess they should start reading your comments, eh Sharon.

2.93+0.05(+1.74%)Oct 24 4:00 PMEDT