Yes. IMAX should be an $8.00 + stock at this point, especially with Nascar's numbers. The reason the stock is currently down is that we've probably just heard the only news we're going to hear for a while (last year's history) and the positive news won't be out for a number of weeks ("Harry Potter and "Catwoman" promotions). After that, we'll be hearing what a great year 2004 has been for IMAX. Therefore, this stock will snap back up like a rubberband by the start of summer. By then it will be way above $8.00. So, unless you NEED to cash in right now, I wouldn't be selling shares of IMAX. Selling at this bargain price is tantamount to giving your shares away.
If you look at the credits for "NASCAR: The Imax Experience", you will see that Warner Bros. is only the distributor of the film. It is not a Warner Bros. production. NASCAR and IMAX are the producers. Therefore, IMAX will realize more revenue than some here apparently think.
Why are you guys encouraging this twerp to clutter up the board with more junk posts by responding to his nonsense? Just ignore the poor, lonely guy and try to keep the IMAX board sensible. The fact that he uses different, but similar spellings for the same name must be obvious that he wants to be in people's faces and getting around the "ignore" features by changing his nic's spellings. I just don't go into the posts that use any variations of that nic. I suggest you do the same.
This stock will be going back up like a rubber band. At the present, we're just in a period of no news vs the negative 2003 financial report which was due mainly to the Matrix disappointment (not IMAX's fault). Anyone buying IMAX stock now will make money this summer.
There was a full length film about formula 1 racing back in 1967 called "Grand Prix" starring James Garner. It was filmed in single lens Cinerama.
image_evolution wrote; "Either the PR department at IMAX is pubescent, or the US newswires require kickbacks that IMAX is not willing to provide, or (what?)".
I've often wondered the same thing about the news media and their portraying what is really promotional hype as being "news". After all, every time Michael Jackson goes to the store, the media has been there "covering the story". The same thing with other hype-fodder, e.g. Ben & Jen, Britney, Madonna, etc., etc.,.... For years, Madonna entertains us with sleaze while being hyped to the hilt. Then all of a sudden, she makes an about-turn and starts writing books for children and acting like an "English Country Rose". Of course, the media has to be there to cover her "metamorphosis". I have to wonder how much the PR people for these artists pay to get the "news" coverage they need in order to advertise their clients. Yes, it's all about ADVERTISING folks, and IMAX management needs to realize this. To realize revenue, you need to ADVERTISE effectively.
moreconfusedeveryday wrote: "The Genies are Canada's (much humbler) version of the Oscars."
Seems to me ANYTHING Canadian is a much humbler version of its U.S. counterpart....including IMAX. What IMAX needs is good old American hype. If people don't know you're out there and that you have a better motion picture experience to offer, they're just going to go on being satified with 2nd rate offerings. Wake up IMAX and promote yourself effectively like Cinerama and Cinemascope did back in the 1950's! Again, I live in the Hollywood area and most people I know don't even know about IMAX's DMR.
Leland.... I, like you, am an ASTM long. I just bought into ASTM today and am elated with today's results. However, you anti-semitic ignorant....as a supporter of Jesus' teachings, I'm ashamed of having to admit that I have something in common with you, even if it's only owning the same stock.
The price of this stock is going up on anticipation of the company's future. It has nothing at all to do with current earnings. Stay the course folks....you won't regret it.
California Stem Cell Group Will Spend Millions Opposing Human Cloning Ban
Email this article
by Steven Ertelt
February 10, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The California political group that spent $35 million last year to pass a ballot proposal to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on embryonic stem cell research will spend millions to defeat a Congressional bill that would ban all forms of human cloning.
Robert Klein, the wealthy real estate magnate behind the California group, says he intends to raise at least $1 million to find the measure, proposed by pro-life Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback.
The bill, sponsored by Florida Rep. Dave Weldon in the House, would ban human cloning for both research and reproductive purposes.
Klein's group opposes the bill because Proposition 71 approved by voters in California will allow taxpayer funds to go to scientists and research universities that intend to use cloning to create human embryos to be destroyed for their stem cells.
The campaign committee is still $1.3 million in debt, according to an Associated Press report, but that is expected to be quickly erased as fundraising for lobbying against the human cloning ban begins.
Don Reed, who sits on the campaign committee's board, told AP that the committee will hire a professional lobbying firm to lobby against the bill.
With the support of President Bush and a handful of new pro-life members of the Senate, prospects are better than ever for the human cloning ban, which has previously been approved by the House.
In August 2001, President Bush put in place a policy preventing federal funding of any new embryonic stem cell research. Instead, the Bush administration has funded the use of adult stem cells to the tune of $190 million.
Adult stem cells, which come from more ethical sources such as bone marrow and umbilical cord blood, have already produced 140 treatments for diseases and ailments. Research conducted with embryonic stem cells has yet to produce a cure for any patient.
UCF stem cell research may hold promise for treating Alzheimer's disease
A compound may improve the chances that stem cells transplanted from a patient�s bone marrow will help take over brain functions
ORLANDO, Feb. 10, 2005 -- A compound similar to the components of DNA may improve the chances that stem cells transplanted from a patient's bone marrow to the brain will take over the functions of damaged cells and help treat Alzheimer's disease and other neurological illnesses.
A research team led by University of Central Florida professor Kiminobu Sugaya found that treating bone marrow cells in laboratory cultures with bromodeoxyuridine, a compound that becomes part of DNA, made adult human stem cells more likely to develop as brain cells after they were implanted in adult rat brains. The findings will be included in the next issue of the Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience journal, which is scheduled to be published in late February.
Sugaya and his colleagues at UCF's Burnett College of Biomedical Sciences hope to eventually show that stem cells transplanted from a patient's blood or bone marrow will be an effective treatment for Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases because they can replace cells that die from those ailments. The researchers are working with a $1.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health.
"By using a patient's own stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, we're able to avoid the ethical concerns many people have about stem cell research," Sugaya said. "We also don't have to worry about the immune system rejecting the new cells."
Stem cells hold promise for the treatment of many diseases because they are capable of dividing endlessly and developing into many different types of cells in the human body. The researchers at UCF and the University of Illinois at Chicago, where Sugaya taught before moving to UCF last summer, are the first to demonstrate improved memory in adult animals after transplanting neural stem cells into their brains.
Sugaya and his colleagues used bromodeoxyuridine to improve the chances that the stem cells taken from adults' bone marrow would have the potential to develop more efficiently into neural cells.
In the same experiments, they reported successes in taking stem cells from bone marrow and getting them to become retinal cells after they were implanted in rats. Improving the chances of implanted cells functioning as retinal cells is an encouraging sign for the treatment of glaucoma and other diseases that cause patients to lose their vision.
Sugaya hopes further studies at UCF will lead to researchers gaining more control over ensuring that cells develop properly as brain cells once implanted in brains and as retinal cells when implanted in eyes. His research group also is testing the ability of stem cells taken from adults' bone marrow to become other types of cells, such as heart muscle cells, after they have been treated with bromodeoxyuridine. Many more tests using cell cultures and animals need to be conducted before any trials on humans can be done.
February 15, 2005
BY PETER J. CATALDO
There are three myths in the politically charged controversy over stem cell research.
One is that all such work involves only embryonic stem cell research. A second is that embryonic stem cell research is the only stem cell research that can aid the treatment of certain types of diseases, and that opposing this type of research will deny unique benefits to those in need. The third myth is that the Roman Catholic Church opposes all stem cell research.
It is critically important for voters and policy makers to know and understand the facts on this issue. In Michigan, for example, legislation has been introduced that would amend an existing statute to allow for human cloning and embryonic stem cell research.
The truth is that there are two types of stem cell research -- embryonic and adult -- and that the treatment needs of people afflicted with debilitating diseases may be met with adult stem cell research. The fact that there are two types of stem cell research and that there are significant differences between them is often lost in the rhetoric.
Extracting stem cells from embryos to establish embryonic stem cell lines kills embryos. Embryonic stem cells have proven difficult to work with and have a propensity to form tumors in experiments. Despite continuing embryonic stem cell research, to date there are no clinical treatments with these cells.
These facts are in contrast to the real success of adult stem cell research in which adult stem cells have been used to treat 56 different diseases. Adult stem cells are present in the body at any time following the embryonic stage of growth in the womb and throughout the remainder of an individual's life. Adult stem cells of newborns are also found in umbilical cord blood and the placenta. Neither the use of adult stem cells nor the establishment of adult stem cell lines involves the destruction of embryos or any disproportionate risk to the individual from whom the cells are taken.
The human embryo is not, as the proponents of embryonic stem cell research assume, "a bundle of cells" or an "undifferentiated mass of cells." Rather, the human embryo is an actual, self-integrating, unified individual being, endowed with human nature and as such is the proper bearer of fundamental human rights. It is a potential newborn or adult, but as real a human individual as any other human. To extract its stem cells is to destroy directly an innocent human life and to sacrifice that life for medical research. Support for this activity places a purely instrumental value on these human individuals who are equal in dignity to any other human being.
Another disturbing ethical concern in the debate is the denouncement that any opposition to embryonic stem cell research is "ideology, not science." What this means is that any position other than acceptance of embryonic stem cell research is necessarily biased and agenda-driven. This view (itself ideological) is disturbing not simply because it assumes there is an imperative to use all available technology, even at the expense of human life, but also because it sets up a false conflict between science and ethics. It is really saying that science should not be evaluated on independent moral grounds.
The prospect of curing many debilitating conditions such as Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease and paralysis -- or at least significantly lessening the suffering they cause -- through stem cell research and therapy has captured the ethical and political attention of the world. The fact that there is so much at stake in stem cell research makes the issue a defining one for America.
It is important that we understand the whole story behind stem cell research,.
Senate supports stem cell research but not without strife
By Monty Kahlon
Senators unanimously voted Feb. 8 to establish a stem cell research fund named after the late actor Christopher Reeve. However, on a 23-17 vote, the Senate said the money cannot fund research that uses embryonic stem cells.
Reeve, who played the lead in the "Superman" movies, became an advocate for brain- and spinal-cord-related research after being paralyzed in an equestrian accident. He died at age 52 on Oct. 11, 2004.Senate Bill 1194, sponsored by Sen. Russell Potts Jr. (R-Winchester), calls for the establishment of the Christopher Reeve Stem Cell Research Fund. It would support medical research at Virginia's institutions of higher education into the causes and cures of such diseases as paralysis, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and Lou Gehrig's disease.
Originally, the measure also called for the appropriation of $1 million of state money. However, under an amendment attached by the Senate Finance Committee, the General Assembly will consider the funding separately as part of the state budget.
"What we have here is a situation that provides hope," Potts said about his bill.
The measure will support medical research that uses stem cells extracted from sources such as an umbilical cord of a newborn baby. Researchers are hoping to find cures for neurological and other diseases and spinal-cord injuries by conducting experiments with stem cells.
Under an amendment adopted on the Senate floor, the bill was limited to research that does not use stem cells extracted from human embryos.
"I and many other Virginians believe that life does begin at fertilization-that we are experimenting on human beings when we are utilizing embryonic stem cells," said Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Centreville), the sponsor of the amendment.
For research purposes, the embryonic stem cells are less useful than other stem cells such as stem cells extracted from umbilical cords, he added.
Cuccinelli's words did not sit well with Potts. He invoked the name of the late President Reagan, whose widow, Nancy Reagan, supports public funding of research using embryonic stem cells.
"The great Ronald Reagan said, 'Tear down that wall.' He didn't say tear down half that wall," Potts said in opposition of Cuccinelli's amendment.
Denying state funds to research that uses embryonic stem cells will put barriers in the way of obtaining crucial medical knowledge, he said.
In support of his argument, Potts had a prominent scientist on his side.
John Fenn, who won the 2002 Nobel Prize for chemistry, echoed Potts' argument for state funding of embryonic stem cell research.
"I think that any time somebody takes it upon himself to say that something shouldn't be done, especially in research, those are on their own risk," Fenn, a professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, said in an interview after the Senate vote.
Limiting funding to research that does not use embryonic stem cells is "removing the possibility of something that would make life much better," he said.
SB 1194 is now in the House.
Some un-informed shareholders have practically given away their shares due to the recent scare regarding EMBRYONIC stem cells being contaminated. ADULT stem cells were not a part of this issue, but the term "stem cells" being used in a negative story has scared out the "nervous nellies" and will deprive them of the longer term run-up. I'm not a daytrader so I'm not concerned with the daily charts, but in the longer run, this stock is going up....no doubt about it.