it can be down 80%-I could care less-thanks "shortie" will load up with a ton more!!! your contribution to this enterprise is greatly appreciated!!!!
possibly application to uplist to major exchange (?NASDAQ/NYSE)-this would allow institutional/mutual funds to invest (as the vast majority can't invest in OTC stocks)
but still enrolling into STOP-HE trial and results not likely until end of year--not much to drive the price up for now--will likely buy back in fall
I'm almost "even" with my OCRX position--likely going to sell and put it into something with a chance for moving sooner---if OCRX gets closer to the results of the STOP-HE trial (?Q4) will get back in then. Still remain a bit frightened of a company that has so much riding on a single drug/trial result
When do you think we will see results for STOP-HE trial-that will confirm efficacy--the recent drop in pps was because there was no statistically significant difference in ammonia levels between traditional treatment and OCR-002--although safety was confirmed and there was statistically significant difference in urinary ammonia.
The best case scenario will be uplisting to a major exchange (likely NASDAQ)--most retirement funds/hedge funds etc etc won't go near OTC stocks--once NVIV uplists-there will be a major "bump up" in pps
I'm not an expert when it comes to stem cell research-but I know CUR is using them in a study with ALS-with first line results due ~April. My concern is that it's known "plunking" stem cells into a site of injury (be it spinal cord injury/damaged nerve endings etc) hasn't traditionally been successful-the "microenvironment" at the site of injury/insult is full of "nasty" cells-macrophages/cytokines etc--as a result these stem cells can't thrive there---this is why I love what In Vivo is doing--this "scaffold" they use is an anchor to protect stem cells so they can "do their thing" and repair nerve endings/sprout new nerve connections. Hence my trepidation with CUR--they seem to be just "plunking" these stem cells hoping for a result (unless they are doing something different?)--hence I see them potentially partnering with NVIV down the road to use their scaffold
I'm certainly much more confident now than I was the last time In Vivo reached $6. At that time there were no patients/no results just an over enthusiastic CEO who kept making unrealistic timelines that he couldn't keep that ultimately led to his dismissal (along with an inability to uplist--this time I definitely see that happening)
Sentiment: Strong Buy
thanks-will do my DD on CYTX
why the big drop in pps today?
beginning to get worried about the upcoming STOP-HE trial results
(if they are anything less than exempliary this stock is "toast")
"Injecting cells alone into the spine has already shown no benefit"
so what is CUR doing?? they seem to be just repeating what has been done many times before-with little to no benefit
Do you think NWBO's DC-VAX will be more marketable for brain cancer treatment or will what IMUC has be the standard treatment in the future (or a combination of the two?)
Thanks as always for your insight and knowledge into the inner workings of the buracracy at the FDA (you remain the "voice of reason" on this board where there are many "cheerleaders")-interested in knowing if you're invested/following anything else with as much potential at the moment (in other fields--cancer etc.?) -and whether you think In Vivo is in negotiation with CUR about a partnership (I believe Dr. Langer is on the scientific advisory board of another stem cell company--so I was wondering if this is in the offing?)
CUR is using stem cells at the site of injury and are going to soon report on results using stem cells in a ALS trial-In Vivo's most recent investor presentation hinted that they are in preliminary discussions with stem cell companies about collaborating in a future "scaffold + stem cells" trial
(I would like to ask anyone on this board who is far more knowledgeable than I am----there have been many previous attempts at "plunking" stem cells at the site of spinal cord injury (many patients have gone to China (medical "tourism"-with generally disappointing results)--what makes what CUR is doing any different?? my understanding is that the microenvironment at the site of spinal cord injury is too "hostile" to allow stem cells to differentiate and repair the disrupted neural connections-In Vivo's scaffold gives these stem cells something to adhere to and differentiate--that's why ultimately In Vivo's scaffold will be the standard for care in both acute and chronic spinal cord injury in the future-any company using stem cells will have to either partner with/or pay royalties to In Vivo to use the scaffold
Sentiment: Strong Buy
possibly clinical update (Jesi's surgery was January 20 so would be ~30+ days since)---maybe another clinical site to be added (#8 of potentially 20 in total)--In Vivo's investor presentation also mentioned they were in preliminary discussion with possible stem cell partner--any announcement of a deal would be incredible as it would bring them closer to the start of a "scaffold + stem cell" trial after deliberations with the FDA
I completely agree with you--I think what sets In Vivo apart from other companies is that you have to look at what their doing---tell me how many advances has there been reversing/repairing spinal cord injury/paralysis in history??? essentially very little to nothing--Christopher Reeve was someone I deeply admired as he raised millions of dollars/raised public awareness to the situation of patients who had suffered spinal cord injury---however although the money he has raised has led to greater resources/supports for this population there really has been no "tangible" results to ultimately help these patients recover at least some CNS function---what In Vivo is doing will complete change all of this---you can't tell me that once the results from this trial show this is possible that the general public/corporate sector aren't going to be "all over" this company---the hype alone will send the pps skyward--as such I'm sure operating expenses in the future will not be a problem
Sentiment: Strong Buy
there were two back to back articles in "Seeking Alpha" in August 2013-the first was almost precisely timed to be a "hit" piece right around the time Mr. Reynolds (the former CEO at In Vivo) was ousted--this stupid article questioned everything about the science behind the scaffold and how it was "doomed" to failure--the end result was a massive drop in the pps---a second article a few days later (a female author who had been supportive of In Vivo) essentially painstakingly went point by point over the first article and refuted most of the scurrilous points the first author had made--although the "bleeding" in the pps decreased somewhat this period of time marked the start (along with the failure for In Vivo to get uplisted) of In Vivo's decline to at one point $0.47 pps. This time the recovery of pps back close to ~$3 will definitely hold as there are actual solid results to report (and also many catalysts upcoming)--I only wish we had Mr. Astrue/Mr. Perrin at the "helm of this ship" from the beginning-Mr. Reynolds simply didn't know what he was doing especially the nuances in dealing with the FDA
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I believe that Dr. Langer felt he owed Mr. Reynolds for helping to found In Vivo and getting his scaffold (polymer) closer to human trials--as such when it became apparent Mr. Reynolds was making a complete mess of In Vivo (unrealistic timelines/inability to get uplisting) the board of directors fired Reynolds but Dr. Langer agreed to help Mr. Reynolds set up his new company (PixarBio) again with a polymer device (Dr. Langer's invention) that potentially can release Parkinson Disease drugs in the Substantia Nigra on a very gradual/long term basis--unfortunately Mr. Reynolds has remained "bitter" about this loss of his position with In Vivo and has continued "dumping" his shares which has led to a long term depressed pps--I think this is still being sorted out in the courts
"however trials on monkeys only have a 40% correlation to humans"
I want you to site the scientific paper/journal/source where this came from??? If this has something to do with a "drug" treatment than this is baloney---the scaffold is not a "drug" but a device--African Green Monkeys used in the In Vivo trial are 98-99% genetically similar-which means the likelihood this will work the same in humans (and even better) are 99% (especially with the far more advanced neuroplasticity response humans have)-you're post is completely false
Q4 (Dec) earnings of $0.51 per share, $0.08 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $0.43; revenues rose 9.4% year/year to $23.3 mln vs the $22.98 mln consensus.
so what's the problem here??? why is this down $1.46 after hours???
Earnings $0.8 better/revenues also beat consensus?