Also don't forget SSH stabilizes or improves stage 111 Heart Failure. If successful , there will less patients in stage IV Hear Failure for Companies like Thor. Buying out SSH is a matter of survival for them and the sooner they do it the less they pay.
I hope you are right on the reasons for the secondary. I agree if it works a $ 50 buyout is too low, it will have a market cap of at least $ 1 billion,more likely higher.
Big M is not completely there and I am long but the stock does have risks and they have to be acknowleged. The thing that I find a little concerning is that they raised cash ahead of some key news in October. If the news is going to be good why not raise cash after the news is out? Any alternative views appreciated.
The FDA was aware of the infection rate when the trail was approved. If the FDA is not letting them proceed with the trial because of fear of infection, this is material news and would have to be disclosed by the company. My problem is not the infection rate ( we all know it has to come down ) but your statement that the trial is/ was stopped because of fear of infection. Where did you read that the FDA will or has stopped the trial?
There is something seriously wrong with you. Your own post from 2 weeks ago.
bigsmartsta • Sep 25, 2013 11:06 PM Flag
0 users liked this posts users disliked this posts 0
And then the last think is, we put together an infection control committee that literally takes a look at every single exit site infection that comes in. So and I actually incorrectly said on my quarterly call that we had one in Germany that was resolved through antibiotics. It actually turned out that it wasn’t an exit site infection. So, we haven’t had any since we made these changes. They are still going to happen. We just hope that they are not occurring at a 40% rate like they did in the pilot trial
Stop pretending you are not big Smartsta. Since you are already trying to deceive its hard to believe what you say but if you actually have CHF I am sorry for you.
If #$%$ M thinks he is fooling anyone with this alias ( ejht) created yesterday he is mistaken. The simple fool does not realize that the NIH sponsored trial for the open procedure failed. No one is going to sink money to sponsor a trial for a variation of a procedure that has not been found to be of any benefit.
I see you like to argue even when you are proven wrong. First I quote your own post which contradicts what you are saying and then offer additional evidence but you persist in spouting nonsense. I feel sorry for you but I will not waste anymore time on you.
Really! Read below even the surgeons who participated in the trial are close to calling it a fraud.
The STICH trial
The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial was designed to address two specific primary hypotheses in patients with clinical heart failure, LV dysfunction, and CAD amenable to surgical revascularization and was conducted as two parallel trials. Buckberg et al. address the portion of the STICH trial that has already reported and that randomized 1000 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and dominant anterior LV dysfunction amenable to SVR, that underwent CABG alone or had CABG + SVR.12,13 The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or cardiac hospitalization with a median follow-up of 48 months. The addition of SVR to CABG had no effect on the primary outcome or either of its components. Cardiac symptoms and exercise tolerance improved from baseline to a similar degree in both study groups. Surgical ventricular reconstruction resulted in lower LV volumes 4-month post-operation. STICH is the first large randomized trial evaluating the long-term effects of SVR.
In this issue of the journal,14 a group of surgeons, some of whom participated in the STICH study as investigators, raise a number of concerns regarding several aspects of the STICH trial. Some of their concerns have been addressed at recent major meetings in presentations that have focused on the subgroups of patients these authors believe are the most likely to benefit with SVR. The complete papers of these presentations have been submitted or are in preparation for submission for publication. Other concerns expressed by these authors appear not to be warranted.
The authors begin by expressing concerns that the patients selected in STICH did not meet all of the optimal characteristics for the SVR procedure. They correctly point out that in the initial protocol, patients were to have an LVESVI of ≥60 mL/m2, akinesia/dyskinesia ≥35% of the anterior wall,
Do you actually read what you post? You just posted that the randomized triall did not work. From your posting The prospective, randomized STICH trial did not confirm these findings and the reasons for this discrepancy are examined in detail.
Secondly what was reported was the first human case report done in a cath lab in LITHUANIA. It will need a lot more work before the FDA or the European equivalent will allow a human trial.
There will be no time if you mean you want to buy it at around 6. When the Recordati collaboration was announced it went to 9 + in a heartbeat. This has a small float and all biotech stocks run up to the announcement of results and if the results are positive you are looking at 20+ almost instantaneously. JIMO. All this TA mumbo jumbo is useless.
You are probably right that this is more about treating BPH than cancer. If they can show that this has no adverse effect on prostate cancer this would be a positive although I am sure that the if approved the FDA will give them a REMS to monitor incidence of prostate cancer incidence in men undergoing treatment with NX1207.
Prostate cancer is typically an adenocarcinoma and peripheral and so at a different site from where nx1207 is injected for BPH. Also prostate biopsies are poor at identifying and localizing prostate cancer and that is why in the US they are increasing turning to prostate MRI in combination with ultrasound especially for planning surgeries. The trend in US is towards more surgery as opposed to conservative care. From Wikipedia.
Currently, MRI is used to identify targets for prostate biopsy using fusion MRI with ultrasound (US) or MRI-guidance alone. In men who are candidates for active surveillance, fusion MR/US guided prostate biopsy detected 33% of cancers compared to 7% with standard ultrasound guided biopsy.
I have not been visiting this board regularly but I see we have acquired some new regular posters and lost some of the old ones. Its amazing how this stock leaps up at regurgitation of old news. I was building back my position till this morning but I guess I will have to be content with what I have; approx. 65 K
Newbie here and looking for information and since you seem to have the most informative posts here; I thought I would ask you. The one thing that concernsme is theinfection rate, in the initial trial there was a significant incidence of the device being removed because of infection. i believed they altered the design of the connection and now there are less infections and subsequent explants. Do you have knowledgeof any hard data on this? Thx