there won't be anywhere near the time it took to enroll the first patient---the criteria for entry have been expanded--both in age (up to 65) and area of injury--once that second patient confirms "safety" In Vivo will approach the FDA about expediating the trial so that the remaining 3 patients who will take part in this trial don't have to be done sequentially but could be done simultaneously if deemed possible
Thousands of patients die each year from antibiotic resistant infections--CTIX will soon offer something that can completely change that---quit "bashing" this company and the hope for many patients
I also sincerely believe the results will be good---but if not you may have to reconsider your destination---?1000 islands in Eastern Lake Ontario-Oswego NY?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I'm wondering if "effective money raising strategies" may also mean being bought out by a much bigger player (?J & J/Stryker etc)--if that occurs the road to commercialization could be much faster.
I read last year that In Vivo was developing a "chronically" injured rodent population to conduct scaffold/stem cell studies--if that's the case than I agree it will take years to get to humans
if you don't own NWBO why are you making comments on this board?? Get lost
It took nearly 8 months from the time the first site for the pilot study was announced (April 2014) until the first patient was enrolled---with the announcement of the 6th site shortly (before the end of Q4 2014) along with the expansion of the inclusion criteria (announced in October)-there should be little to no delay in getting the 2nd patient enrolled (pending FDA approval to go forward in January 2015)---once the second patient is reviewed (?April-May 2015) hopefully the expediated study will be approved and all these sites can start enrolling patients
Sentiment: Strong Buy
"Speculation is now running rampant as investors and computer algorithms play "connect the dots" to figure out who is next in an industry that is sure to undergo some more consolidation. Names that have already been identified by analysts on the Street as possible candidates include: Kodiak Oil and Gas, Marathon Oil, Northern Oil and Gas, Anadarko Petroleum, Pioneer Natural Resources"
does this mean this worthless piece of garbage (KDKN) may have some value afterall?
I really hope you are just being sarcastic otherwise I suggest you get back on your medication ASAP
Sentiment: Strong Buy
thanks---but do you think CUR will have any success (I realize you can't predict this)---but my understanding is that they are just injecting stem cells into spinal cord injured patients at various time intervals and monitoring response---I thought this has been proven to be without any major benefit again because of the "hostile" environment these stem cells are exposed to at the site of injury--but I put all my bets on what In Vivo is doing
Will the company CUR have to team up with In Vivo to use the scaffold--my understanding is that they are doing a trial just injecting stem cells into spinal cord injured patients--and hasn't this been done already in China? I've heard about "medical tourists" going there to have this done--not sure results have been anything "special"
One of the neurosurgeons on In Vivo's scientific advisory board (Dr. Slotkin) has mentioned previously that he expects the response to the scaffold in humans should be superior to that seen in primates due to the fact that the neuroplasticity response is far more advanced---but again this is a new "frontier" so its not an exact science
I'm not here to argue--I'm making a very valid point---read the literature-just putting neural stem cells at a site of injury will provide little to no benefit--this has been done in China-many "medical tourists" have gone there to have this done (and there is little to no regulatory bodies governing this in China)--the end results have been disappointing to say the least--ultimately I see CUR teaming up with NVIV to use their proprietory scaffold to allow these neural stem cells an "anchor" that can allow these cells to thrive and sprout axons to bridge the neural connections that have been disrupted--this will be the future of spinal cord treatment-not just throwing cells into an injury and expecting them to correct the injury
I have an MD with a PhD in neuroscience---throwing neural stem cells into a "hostile" environment like a spinal cord that has been injured will not be effective--they are trying to throw in millions of cells "hoping" some of them "take root"---The Chinese have tried this (since they don't have an equivalent of the FDA to regulate this)--in fact hundreds of patients have gone there to have this done with very little to no benefit
I also think In Vivo has a very good working relationship with the FDA and want to maintain this as we go forward (especially in 2015 when they are going to ask for the timeline for the scaffold trial be advanced)--I'm not sure the FDA would be too thrilled with In Vivo "tooting their horn" prematurely
not unless they have a "scaffold" like device to attach the neural stem cells to---throwing neural stem cells into a spinal cord injury site won't do anything
I thought the failure to uplist the last time was because the former CEO (Reynolds) had too much control-CEO and a multitude of shares (which this idiot is still selling off in bunches)--it was shortly after this (Aug 2013) when Reynolds left due to "health reasons" and was ultimately replaced by Micheal Astrue---the stock then continued its downward spiral
I realize the goal is a trial of scaffold + neural stem cells--however are there natural neural stem cells in the area of this injury already? and could they be binding to this scaffold and sprouting axons/neurons? once the scaffold dissolves into H20/C02 is there any way (?MRI) to show that this happened? (although I realize any neurologic improvement (motor/sensory) would basically prove the same thing)
My sincere best to Mr. Fallis---the trial allows a new patient to enroll every 3 months after review by the FDA--if this story makes it to the national news-and tomorrow another patient arrives with an acute spinal cord injury-how could the FDA prevent that patient from being offered the scaffold?? (especially in light of the fact that it appears to be working for Mr. Fallis)
Just saw the news clip--thanks
Dr. Theodore seems optimistic that Mr. Fallis will show some neurologic improvement in the months to come--its simply too early to say how much---but clearly the "safety" aim of this trial has so far been achieved