Fluff PR. No terms announced because there are probably no terms. 5th tier partner. And leave it to Spiro to issue a PR for a likely phantom licensinv deal on the reddest day of the past year. As they say timing is everything.
It's a legal scam. Spiro does nothing other than siphon a million+ a year from shareholders. He is going on two decades as CEO. And I wouldn't doubt if he was affiliated with short sellers.
That's 5 in 2 weeks.
Stingily hoarded cash from shareholders for himself. Years to come? Dude, he does an offering at least once every year and 3rd R/S going to be needed if he can't drum up some interest in the stock. If you believe what he says about having enough cash then you might want to rewind some prior conference calls where he said the same exact thing then diluted shortly after. No debt? True. Companies that dilute often don't have debt. Besides, who is going to lend $ to a lying sleezeball who hasnt spun a profit in 18 years because he can't sell anything but lies?
eddy, are your ridiculously stupid comments just some sort of juvenile prank to get people riled up or are you really that fresking stupid? You could poll every single shareholder in CYCC history and you wouldn't get a single one of them to say that Spiro has done the right thing. He's made terrible decisions and has flat out lied to his shareholders. And the company is in great shape? yeah, such great shape that they will have to dilute again within a year and conduct a 3rd reverse split and they have no partner or approved drug in 18 years!!!!. Spiro has already provided a -99.5% return to initial investors. How many years do you get to be a developmental drug company? I guess a lifetime if Spiro is your CEO.
But read the 8K. Sure sounds like Spiro wants to take a run at AML with 065. If he there is a R/S and he announces an AML trial (presumably without a partner), I will short as many shares as I can afford to.
If a tree falls in a forest...
All the things you say are valid, I saw the SPPI news and thought the same thing. Dart and Sabby should apply major heat. Even if they issued a PR indicating they were seeking changes the PPS would at least temporarily pop like SPPI. Where's Bill Ackman? Oh yeah, Ackman wouldnt touch this from the long side.
IMO Spiro is running a fraud. Keep hope alive but take as long as possible. He's been CEO since 1997. Prior to taking the company public through a reverse merger, he was milking private equity. Nearly 20 years of sucking the teets of others and not one licensing deal or one product approved. But hundreds of bi-weekly paychecks and potentially profiting from short selling too.
The word is "good efficacy"? I seem to recall that 70% of patients were dead after 6 months. Now, this may be due to a combo of very sick elderly patients coupled with poor trial design, but the only thing we heard is that sapa patients weren't disadvantaged as compared to control. I don't recall anyone saying "good efficacy". Now, there may be some hope if the few survivors live longer on sapa + daco vs daco alone, but let's face it, the interim analysis grade was a solid "F". And the CEO IMO is an absolute #$%$. That phase 2b has been talked about ad nauseum. Keep in mind Spiro has already run multiple phase 2s MDS. And if 065 is the crown jewel and CDK research is why the company was founded, what in the hell has Spiro been doing since 1997? Interesting how he pulls 065 out of the closet after sapa fails interim futlity. A sucker is born every minute and he knows it. There is better chance of making money by pitching dimes into soda bottles at the local carnival than with Spiro. That's because even carnival management guys who ripoff kids have more ethics than Spiro.
Well actually I think it is a time for words. Yes the independent DSMB does advise the principal investigator and/or sponsor to the degree it can without compromising the integrity of the trial, however the DSMB is appointed by the investigator or sponsor. Therefore the DSMB is not "the FDA" and nor does the FDA "pick" the DSMB. Rather the FDA sets guidelines for DSMBs and the #1 priority of the DSMB is the "S" or safety. It is not the DEMB where "E" is efficacy.
Where and when did "the FDA" explicitly say there is good efficacy or a favorable toxicity profile or ease of administration? If you can point readers or media to such value statements made by the FDA then you would presumably help the pps.