"81%, would want to identify an incurable neurological disorder if it affected somebody close to them, with more women (84%) wanting to know than men (76%). The “Value of Knowing” global survey of 10,000 adults across 10 countries explored perspectives on incurable neurological disorders including Alzheimer’s (AD) and Parkinson’s (PD"
Watson, what you say makes sense. When big Pharma/Bio money sees the Lympro diag values (S&S) all bets on SP based on cenventional thinking are off. IMO, it is what it is, there is no model. RS is not a realistic option in my scenario, although even bringing it up was a strategic ballsy move. Lots of moving parts here. Appreciate your thoughts.
Until and unless we are able to work rationally with the facts and are able to objectively analyze what is broken nothing will get resolved. Everyone take a deep breath, we can do this. We do not need politicians telling us what to think or how to feel.
jeg...thanks for an excellent summary/analysis. IMO, any one of these points would easily justify huge run up in SP when considered in a broader context.
Do you have thoughts on AMBS as a buy out candidate?
Although I usually support GC the tweet on RS was an unforced strategic error. It had the unintended consequence of pumping the shorts and shakeing the retailers.No RS or even uplist mass movement until more real portential is shown. Get back to basics as way to up SP, any fool can do RS for uplist attempt.
I agree fundamentally with your position. GC seems like a very solid, honest guy although he makes me nervous on this RS-BS. Lets make something first, then generate revnue. Uplisting is not near the top of my list of critical things to get done, let that one slide a few quarters. Get the LYMPRO story out there, built SP based on tangibles, contribute to an AD breakthrough.. Trust the process. He has gathered the right team, trust them. Get some operational people who deliver in a timely manner, academics do not think that way, grunts do....even the brilliant ones.
GC was loud and clear not long ago about NO RS. Now he acts like he wants/will do one as soon as the opportunity presents. RS is BS.
My sense is if we had to wait for the normal PR scenarios most of us would not be here because we would never heard about AMBS. We could argue that socilal media/blogs are a good thing but, the pace of development phase reviews are ,for some reason, off. An emphsis on technical capacity is critical. We all know that AMBS cannot schedule an invention-breakthrough date. But we can expect that a predictable process will yield results more or less on an established timeline. IMO, hitting the numbers for LYMPRO (on time) is critical. BTW, odds are good IMO.
You guys have missed it entirely. The social media being used is not, by itself, relevant. The issue which AMBS must address is their business plan and the technical capabilies are asynchronous. All healthy technology organizations develop a stress between business time lines and technical milestones (read capacity/capability). In AMBS'S case, scientific developments are not keeping pace with planned/expected business plans. The issues are possibly exaserbated by some farmed out work.The talk about RS is a symptom of this gap/delay. The use of BLOGS simply puts us all in closer touch with the asynchronous dynamic normally buffered by the legacy PR processes. Nothing is broken (we assume). We shareholders cannot let this team down, and they need to get everything synchronized.
Will all those who have zero facts and try to scare others for profit recognize your pathetic lives and go tear the wings off little girls butterflies or something more tangible and satisfying. Spare us 10 hours of soap opera drama. GC, do me a favor and take their faces off, in a postive way of course.
The only logic that works for me is the hostile takeover defense. AMBS either has/has not breakthrough science. I am here because I think it does and presents the potential explode at some point. Very large Pharma and others have resources that could/would easily swamp a small company like AMBS, in case of such a takeover scenario. If you were in big Pharma and your entire future was wrapped up in AD/TBI R&D, you might be desparate to control a tool/method which allows you to break the code. Of course I am just guessing like everyone else here. All the best.
All while some argue that tweets are non-professional. Who knew? I agree BioPharma micros are a volatile environment, even w/o tweets. Given a choice I say tweets help more than they hurt. If there will always be a residual owners risk because traders/bashers hype then tweets that talk to the science are not only warranted but should have an overall stabilizing effect. So, tweet away but keep it to science-factual updates, let the PR guys stir the environment.
The apparent schedule/miss-estimated peer review cycle times of LYMPRO data is a tough one to rationalize around. On the other hand, if big pharma (read big $$$) wants thigs to happen, they will. Changes inside big pharma are techno/politcal which means the motivatiion has to be high, read compelling.