There will be so many different funding sources: private wealth of patients; private donation drives; community donations; charitable and religious organizations will donate; ALS organizations may also assist, and yes, maybe some government assistance including Obamacare.
NSI-189 may be connected to helping diabetics with cognitive decline:
"A recent study found that short and long term high blood sugars appear to affect memory negatively. Researchers looked at fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c and established that both were connected to reduced performance on memory tests. More specifically, the study found that elevated blood glucose hurt patient's learning, recall, and consolidation of memories.
In order to examine this correlation, researchers in the study took scans to assess the volume of each patient's hippocampus. They focused on that part of the brain because it's connected to long-term and short-term memory and is also particularly sensitive to high blood sugar levels. Poorer results on memory tests (and higher overall blood sugars) were associated with a smaller hippocampus, while lower blood sugars were associated with a bigger hippocampus. Study author Agnes Flöel said, "Elevated blood sugar levels may damage the outer membrane of the cells, or decrease neurotransmitter levels, which would disturb signaling within and between hippocampal cells. Information transfer between cells, which is indispensable for memory encoding, storage and retrieval, would then be compromised."
Past research has tended to focus on patients with diabetes or other metabolic disorders. This particular study excluded patients with type 2 diabetes, other severe diseases, and those with psychological illness. The subjects were in generally good health yet still showed memory effects with higher blood sugars. The purpose of this was to prove that controlling high blood sugars are important for diabetics and non-diabetics alike."
Agreed I believe the standard for the Judge to apply in a Motion for summary judgment is to deny the motion if there is a genuine issue of material fact that should be decided by the trier of facts (judge if a non-jury case, or jury if a jury case). If there are no such issues, then the judge can rule of the merits of the case based upon the those facts (where no genuine issue of material facts exist) that are not at issue and the law.
I think we get that. The point that some are trying to make is that the fact that those rights were acquired for such a low value seems to indicate that no one thinks those patent rights are that valuable, for whatever reason, but probably because they are not legally enforceable or possibly some other reason or reasons. I have to believe that W&R would have gone to CUR and offered them the rights to CUR to spur a bidding war for them between STEM and CUR, so that they could have gotten the highest best price for those "valuable rights." CUR did not bite for a reason, and I bet it was a good reason.
So, I think many here are saying that STEM's rights acquired from W&R are simply not that valuable given the low sale price. In the remote chance that STEM win its suit against CUR, a licensing arrangement will be reached allowing CUR to use those patents if indeed they are necessary. Maybe a cross licensing agreement will be reached (where no money is exchanged) so that STEM will be able to use CUR's patented delivery system for injections directly to the spinal cord.
Last week was intended to modify when she received the "first real outcome measurements," imo. She had her stem cell surgery in October, 2013.
I believe Garr will be releasing some of that objective data today in SF, and the SP will move accordingly tomorrow. JMO,
"Additionally, the number of shares into which the final 2,500,000 options to vest are exercisable into was subject to reduction (but not increase) if the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the day of exercise is above $5.00. The reduction applied to the number of shares of common stock underlying the options being exercised by a fraction of which the numerator was $5.00 and the denominator is the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the day of exercise, subject to further adjustment as provided for in the 2010 Equity Compensation Plan. On January 28, 2014, the Committee modified the options to remove this provision."
Note the last sentence of this paragraph. Looks like someone thinks CUR SP is going over 5.00, imo.
"I go back real soon to Emory for my first real outcome testing since surgery and I’m really excited and confident about that even though I still have the dream at least twice a week of going and everything being worse. It’s not going to happen. As everyone else, I’m also looking forward to the complete update on all participants. I really hope the best for everyone. For the benefit to them and in hopes it will speed up getting through phase III and having this available to all. I surely can’t be the only one feeling I’ve benefited."
Not only that, but CUR has an opportunity to file a reply brief to STEM's brief in opposition.
I did not mean to imply that that was the burden of proof in the Motion to Dismiss based upon a lack of standing. I was citing that as an example supporting STEM''s intentional misrepresentation or mischaracterization of the law in its brief.
I thank you for posting the information to give me that opportunity on a timely basis. It is always a pleasure reading facts rather than opinions on message boards.
Not so sure I agree. The larger part of STEM's argument is based upon whether Tetzlaff was an owner /inventor of the IP or just someone sharing an economic interest in its development. If you look at the wording of the letter that creates the assignment of interests, it reads: "This letter is to indicate the allotment of interests to the inventors of the above invention." Then it continues to list all three, including Tetzlaff. How can he not be an owner or inventor if the letter clearly states it to be so? STEM also cites that there was no consideration for the letter and therefore it is unenforceable. The consideration given was the contributions Tetzlaff made in its discovery. Clearly, Tetlaff made some contributions that the parties recognized that he should be a co-inventor with a smaller financial allotment than the other two, but clearly identified as a co-inventor.
Fasttimes, I assume you believe that STEM has raised a genuine issue of material fact that necessitates a trial to resolve the issue. I am not convinced that this is the case. I noticed that STEM has stated that CUR failed to produce "clear and convincing evidence" or certain matters, but I believe the burden of proof by CUR is simply "a preponderance of the evidence," a much easier standard of proof. I look forward to CUR's response to STEM's Opposition, but I am not willing to yet concede that there still remains a genuine issue of material fact that necessitates a trial on the issue of standing.
I will speculate that the partnership negotiations were not as beneficial to CUR as Garr had hoped given the results obtained. Not that the results are bad, just that Big Pharma is not willing to pay what CUR management thinks it is worth, imo. I think that in part caused the recent direct public offering of $20 million. So, CUR is likely to go the next step and conduct the Phase 2 for NSI-189, establish efficacy and dose and then seek a partnership if/when Phase 2 results are known and better human data to get the numbers CUR is seeking (probably in retained royalties). Just my guess. I would agree that that is a more prudent approach so as not to sell-out early at shareholders' and the corporation's expense. GLTA,
With respect to your comments about the Phase 1B depression results, I find some solace in the fact that Catherine Sohn has recently joined CUR's BOD. Certainly she was asked to be on the BOD as it relates to her expertise in NSI-189. The news must be compelling enough to start planning for Phase 2, imo.