Can't really speak to the STEM trial - have always considered it white noise.
In regards to CUR releasing any info on the ALS trials, you won't hear anything from the company until Eva Feldman has published or released trial data in a public forum.
As for the Alzheimer's research news, that was from a pre-clinical study in mice - so there was a =n immediate price appreciation, but day/swing traders dumped on that news - +, with the whole Greek debacle, CUR uplisting to NASDAQ from AMSE the stock hasn't gained much traction - although if you'll notice, there has been a slight uptrend.
I think the thing to focus on now is when we will see/hear any news on NSI-189 - we should have started a p1 in schizophrenia, and a p2 in MDD should also be on the horizon. Also, complete data on the p1 MDD trial from Fava. Apparently, those timelines have been pushed without much discussion from the company.
The only bone I have with that is that we were never quite sure when the company would release the topline results for the ALS trial, and when questioned the company had made similar excuses (i.e. not telegraphing shorts) and the stock price got hammered anyway. Another thing that irks me - if Garr and Johe are so excited about the prospects of NSI-189, where are the 4k's? Seems it would be a stellar time to buy their own stock.
Thanks for this post. In regards to the MRI - this has been a real frustrating issue for me. The street has been clamoring for the MRI results (in part due to AF hit piece remarking on the lack of inclusion) while the company seems not to understand what the interest is in the MRI results is. I say this latter part because I had spoken with PR last year, and they didn't get what my concern was involving MRI results. Makes sense though that if you are touting a compound that promotes hippocampal growth, MRI's would illustrate neurogenesis more precisely than the qEEG readouts.
Another frustrating take-away - Garr not concerned about the short attack? PR does not want to telegraph release of new information? How does an investor who wants to believe in the company make an informed investment decision without guidance from the company? I would love to average down in my position, but without anything to base my investment thesis on, I feel it would be very reckless. Especially since the stock appears to be in the throes of market manipulation currently. Neuralstem doesn't seem to get this or be very concerned about the support of retail investors.
Hey oj - I didn't get the context of the question concerning "first name" - thought I was being helpful. Yeah, LJPC is interesting, but too highly priced currently IMO. What bothered me about LJPC was that in talking w/ CEo, he had made a point about discussing prospects of GCS-100 and how working on treatments for CKD was "where the money was at", and then they scrapped that entire pipeline. I believe that the LJPC501 candidate has a lot of promise, but the other candidates are too far off to invest confidently now - essentially a trick pony. Anyway, VRNG - I'm a bag holder - want to see how ZTE and SCOTUS review play out before I make decision to cut and run. GL to you.
The Brean price target is strictly on the NSI-189 potential - Aschoff called the ALS candidate a "freeroll" - so, if the company could ever get around to presenting meaningful data on either, we should see some significant price action. All of this interim price movement is strictly day traders and shorts manipulation, IMHO. BTW, I've been long CUR for over 2 years, but this is one of the worst management teams I've seen in terms of communicating effectively with shareholders, and the company often promises more than they produce (i.e. last years sell-off following the NSI-189 p1 results). Very interested to see if the hiring of Jonathan Lloyd was a meaningful hire that will bring value to the company/shareholders.