Apparently, Gerald was unaware how dependent our recent rise in stock price was to shareholder's anticipation of our cash needs being met through a BD/LymPro partnership.

Look at their 8k/a sec filings and you will see 90% of them are statements terminating aquisition agreements... If you look at them you will see they are copy and paste... mostly the same wording with the names changed!

bet no one looks into it lol

There’s one factor that, as much as anything else, determines how many medicines are invented, what diseases they treat, and, to an extent, what price patients must pay for them: the cost of inventing and developing a new drug, a cost driven by the uncomfortable fact than 95% of the experimental medicines that are studied in humans fail to be both effective and safe.

A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new medicine.

Click here to see cost-per drug estimates for 98 companies over a decade.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/the-cost-of-inventing-a-new-drug-98-companies-ranked/#

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/

"Size has a cost. The data support the idea that large companies may be spend more per drug than small ones. Companies that spent more than $20 billion in R&D over the decade spent $6.3 billion per new drug, compared to $2.8 billion for those that had budgets of between $5 billion and $10 billion.

Some CEOs, notably Christopher Viehbacher at Sanofi, have faced low R&D productivity in part by cutting the budget. This may make sense in light of this data. But it is worth noting that the bigger firms brought twice as many drugs to market. It still could be that the difference between these two groups is due to smaller companies not bearing the full financial weight of the risk of failure."



"Another successful strategy is to focus on ultra-rare diseases; treatments for such ailments can cost $200,000 or more per patient per year, and be highly lucrative. But these drugs don’t seem to eat up much in the way of R&D money.

Genzyme, bought by Sanofi for $20 billion in 2011, spent $963 million per new drug. Alexion, the biggest stand-alone orphan drug maker,spent $490 million in R&D in the decade before its drug was approved; BioMarin, another orphan drug maker, spent just $134 million per drug."

His response was "once accounting and legal sign off news on the official merger will be announced".

If you look at most of the PR's, they come between 9:30 and 10:30. So actually it was a completely feasible idea. Thanks for making something personal

should count the next day as biz day 1. that's like counting 0 as 1. So tomorrow after hours would be in 10 biz days

From what I understand it could be today or tomorrow for SEC filing detailing the definitive agreement as well Audited financials

Solantey: I am emailing Gerald to tell him how you have twisted your conversations with him on the message boards in order to profit personally at the cost of the company at a very critical time.

Personally, I think you should go to jail!

emailed IR today and asked if the "within 10 business days" timeframe was still on track. He replied and said "Seems to be". They responded about 15-20 mins after I sent the email. That's a good sign imo

These funny little tricks they like to pull aren't going to last much longer when these clowns are forced to chase the price much, much higher. It'll be fun to watch.

Very good point kayak, smart investors already made their money here

really.....wow, the amount of geniuses on this thread is simply amazing

Mere speculation not supported by facts. No one knows what Gerald has in the works for funding, nor how things will play out.

Here is your "once stickied" post:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88250742
and your other reply:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88216329

I will attest that you don't discriminate whether info posted would be considered pro or con AMBS
If the info is bogus or questionable, in your opinion, you will ask for proof.

Thanks for taking your time to scrutinize all info.

...you switched your story to the specific names of companies with which he has NDAs with.

Gerald told me personally that Novartis is testing MANF/Diabetes but wouldn't talk about it. You came unglued over that. I don't know what else I can tell you? Your purpose here seems to be to put up obstructions rather than speculate on possibilities.

Joe Namath admits to having brain related medical issues.

I guess Ronald Hayes (Banyan) and Gerald didn't have a thing to say to each other at the C4CT. Probably were at opposite sides of the room and never spoke or ate together afterwards. Just two ships passing in the wind that just happened to be there at Brewer's invitiation. In the same room at a TBI symposium.

I find it curious that Banyan and Amarantus both would have blood tests to diagnose TBI and that they would be allies rather than competitors. You would think if they both were competing with the same TBI blood test, they wouldn't want to be on the same stage together. That fact makes me think there is something we don't fully understand about their relationship. Perhaps they are collaborating in a way that hasn't yet been made public.

Yes, I think all have had your point sufficiently stamped on our foreheads...It doesn't mention "Amarantus", which is why I said that IMO there is a strong reason to speculate.

.... to adapt its (Banyan's) blood test that diagnoses traumatic brain injury