Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If you're going to throw in the possibility of zoning violations or an incompetent pool contractor, we might as well throw in the possibility that we're all being duped by management or the researchers faked the previous trial results and we've licensed a real lemon of a drug.
Straw man argument. I'm implying nothing of the kind about either AMBS management or about the data from Eltoprazine clinicals so far.
I'm simply agreeing with Jason's decision/methodology on how to value the licensing agreement right now.
If you want to look at it from the aspect of a trader, then yes, you might only look at share price, not valuation of the company. But don't sit there and imply that Jason's analysis is done with the same narrow viewpoint. His valuation certainly does account for the number of shares issued, and in that regard, his valuation for the company has doubled, even though the share price he stated only moved upwards by 1 cent.
I've indicated many times that I view AMBS as both a trader and a long term, core holding, investor.
I do not disagree with the valuation increase, but the 'discussion' blurred that with the increase of .01 pps in Jason's pps outlook ...which IS what I guage short to intermediate trading upon.
And I understand why Jason didn't include Eltoprazine in his analysis, but he could just have easily assigned a value based on what Amarantus was paying for it, or some other method. It's similar to adding a pool to an existing house. One might not assign increased value to the house while the pool was undergoing construction, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value.
False analogy. Presuming that you're not violating zoning regulations, and you're using an experienced pool builder, you're far more assured of the added valuation from building the pool than a biotech company is of succesful clinicals and FDA approval. Far more.
Jason was simply being responsible, based upon what he's seen. And of course based upon his interview with Gerald.
It really doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things, and neither does this argument of 1 penny increase of double the company value. If Eltoprazine isn't included, then it's not even a current estimate of the company's value. It's like asking what one's house was valued at last year. The only number that matters is what is the value now, and this article doesn't provide that info.
Funny, I've read many posts, including from you, that dug in against a misstatement of fact that was not central to the 'grand scheme' of AMBS affairs.
As for whether or not AMBS is, as you believe, not presently valued properly? Your assertion, nothing more.
You believe that Eltoprazine means Jason's NPV is incorrect, despite its status as an investigational non revenue producing drug. NPV is a common and commonly accepted method of valuation. A method. What method is your asserstion, your conclusion, based upon?
My target has really $0 NPV value for eltroprazine. I'm not assigning value to it until I see p2b start
So we've confirmed Jason's AMBS analytical methofology. He HAS one and he can defend it.
Jason N. interviews Gerald, recounts what was said and then projects based upon both what he noted from the interview, his extensive experience reviewing biotechs of many kinds, very specifically referencing those companies that may impact AMBS either through past or current research and FDA subnmissions.
He then states his conclusions including estimated valuations for various scenarios, usually couched in terms such as "I believe".
That is SA's and Jason's methodology. Factual, documented, contingent, always, upon possible future developments and therefore accounatable and measureable, though he repeatedly has stated developments are not assured. Biotech company history, I suppose.
Compare and contrast with most of what you read here, and with most of what is claimed as 'DD'.
i need some fresh powder would like to load more before the 2's
Oh, OK. Please let me know when your powder will be in hand. I can't guarantee it, but I'm pretty sure I can get GLER to hold off on their PR and that I can convince MM's not to load up and drive the price up.
There are negotiations being made that are going to answer all of your questions and solve all of your problems. That's all I can tell you right now.
But, unlike Michael C. you have no idea what the time frame is or what exactly will be revealed. The PR may very well reveal more forward looking starements. May be delayed. Anyone who doens't use the words 'may' or 'might' when posting about GLER is kidding themselves.
. You are ignoring the fact that 350m shares have been added to the OS. PPS does not matter in this instance, market cap does. His target has doubled!
I'm ignoring nothing. AMBS pps does matter. The projection by Jason is for one cent more than his prior projections. I gave you reasons why I think it's only one cent.
The one cent equates to double what it was before.
No there is no 'equating' the pps projection of .24 moving to.25 to a 'double'. Great that dilution has not weakened Jason's pps projections, but you can't finesse them into a double.
You trade market cap, I'll trade pps moves. That's in fact what I've been doing with great results/satisfaction.
So are you really saying that he should have increased his target MORE than one cent? The one cent equates to double what it was before. I think thats quite in line with all that has been accomplished by the company.
The one cent IS one cent more than .24. That is not a doubling of AMBS pps projection by Jason.
And I am not saying that he should have increased his target pps MORE than ,01. I simply pointed out that NOTWITHSTANDING all that he has recounted, he has increased his AMBS pps projection by just a penny.
...Only one cent? Only one cent added to his previous AMBS pps target DESPITE ~173 million (~30% of the OS) shares being diluted?? That's 48.84 million dollars of market cap being added to his estimate, or roughly a 36% increase in his target. Yes, DESPITE all that has happened he added "only" one cent.
Yes, in exactly his own words. I'm pretty sure he references his earlier articles. He's probably taking into acount the further out dates for some previously forecasted/anticipated AMBS 'events'.
In a previous article on Amarantus BioScience Holdings, Inc., I concluded that MANF was worth an estimated $42 million in value over at the Amarantus Therapeutics division given all the available scientific data.
As such, I see the entire company worth an estimated $92 million. Given an estimated ~390 million share count, that equates to a target price of $0.24 per share. I expect the value of Amarantus to rise as investors become more familiar with LymPro and the company begins to generate the necessary data for a CLIA filing.
Just read Jason Napadano's new article. Surprised the share price isn't higher.
Why? It could hardly be more comprehensive covering as it does both of the AMBS divisions, including prospects for Eltoprazine.
Jason told us what he did, he sat down with Gerald. He recounted what he was told by Gerald. And he summarized what he believed it all means.
Perhaps the absence of as many 'dots' as are often posted here, together with the 'pushing out' of some dates that were thought by some to be closer, has caused the subdued pps reaction?
That and the fact that he's added only one cent to his earlier AMBS pps target DESPITE all that has happened?
Hey, it's 'green' and there's still the upcoming UN!
We recently sat down with Amarantus Bioscience Holdings (AMBS) CEO, Gerald Commissiong. The meeting confirmed our belief that Amarantus is in the midst of a fundamental turnaround and has significant growth potential over the next two to three years. Below we highlight the four key variables with respect to Amarantus future –MANF, LymPro, Eltoprazine, and the balance sheet.
Final Thoughts
We believe fundamentals are improving at Amarantus Bioscience, both with respect to the development of MANF and LymPro, and on the balance sheet. These improvements are the primary reasons why we believe investors should buy the stock today.
Yes, the company still has significant challenges with respect to clinical development of its products and in securing long-term financial flexibility, but stock prices tend to follow fundamentals, and right now the fundamentals are pointing to a potential breakout in 2014. Our target is $0.25 per share.
JN's updated PPS target doesn't take into account this:
"Amarantus tells us there are additional orphan indications planned for MANF. According to CEO, Gerald Commissiong, the company has entered into several non-disclosure agreements with potential development partners on MANF in new orphan indications."
Huh? The quote is taken from the update. Unless or until JN institutes a 'weighting chart,' assigning valuations to each and every point he makes in his article, we'll have to assume anything he mentions is taken into account in his 'final thoughts'.
You're overvaluing orphan indications. Jason is not.
Final Thoughts
We believe fundamentals are improving at Amarantus Bioscience, both with respect to the development of MANF and LymPro, and on the balance sheet. These improvements are the primary reasons why we believe investors should buy the stock today.
Yes, the company still has significant challenges with respect to clinical development of its products and in securing long-term financial flexibility, but stock prices tend to follow fundamentals, and right now the fundamentals are pointing to a potential breakout in 2014. Our target is $0.25 per share.
This poster sees and hears things in statements that significantly alter their meaning, and therefore their reasoning is a far cry from the "connect the dots" speculations others offer.
That truly is debatable. Again I think that you're making a case for the DD, real AND alleged, that you find most compatible to your own views. Human. We all do it.
That's where critical thinking skills and evidentiary standards kick in for some of us. No, I'm not a lawyer and this board is not a court room. I just refuse to suspend those skills and those standards when I read and post.
And there in fact have been mistatements of facts by those purporting to connect the dots...'drill down.... no less than by those ripping AMBS management, completely without any basis in reality.
I'm still curious as to why hardly anyone else called a poster on the "presentation TO the UN....",even after the correct wording from AMBS' PR was posted..........nothing.
I get WHY there is a double standard. The vast majority posting want to see their in investment in AMBS do well. Many have expressed a personal stake in seeing the science come to fruition as safe and efficacious treatments. None of that makes some of the claims made more credible than they actually are.
Of course I now give the 'free range' pps predictions a wide berth. Remember when they were predicted *by the hour and for 'after lunch'?
No time zones in the Twilight Zone!
(*Those are sell signals and generally indicate a pps top.)
There are more factors involved in that decision than just someone's perception of a problem with MJFF where one likely doesn't exist. The claims that MJFF has "washed their hands" of further funding or involvement with Amarantus are simply ridiculous and nothing but the speculations of a single poster.
Warp, this is overkill. The 'offending' sticky remains up. Really think that it has deterred invesment in AMBS? Would we be at .15 pps or higher right now if ONLY people were not under the misapprehension that the MJFF has 'repudiated' AMBS and MANF for PD?
Believe me I understand the concept of 'running gun battles' with other posters. After all, my virtual AMBS car is riddled with holes.
Can we pull over and and call this particular 'battle'....over.
And c'mon, "nothing but the speculations of a single poster."?
Try applying that standard to all AMBS speculations, and don't tell me that multiple 'good' speculations, speculations that you approve of, are OK!
but its the self righteous way in which you so quickly ram your "truth" down everyone's throats that is off-putting.
It's not MY truth. I don't have my own facts. I use the oft reviled quotes to support my points.
But please do apply your high standard to the "I believe...." posts that are dismissive in their presumptuousness, despite being so often fact-free, and every bit as off- putting to those of us who value facts and evidence about AMBS over beliefs.
So now I see it's discomfort that bothers you. Know anybody who IS comfortable when they're faced with exchanging misinformation for accurate information. I'm not! But I freakin' do because it costs me less to do so.
I believe that will be some form of grant funding announcement next week at the UN Summit
That ship/'dot' sailed with today's announcement of grants from the NFL and GE. And, of course, there is no 'UN Summit'.
#C4CT Concussion Awareness Summit at the United Nations During Super Bowl Wee
It is in fact a "Concussion Awareness Summit" whose location is immaterial to the awarding of grants.....that, again, were announced today.
"The winners were selected from more than 400 entries from 27 countries, after having been reviewed and nominated by a panel of leading healthcare experts in brain research, imaging technologies, and advocates for advances in brain researh."
I believe that challenge I was specifically for diagnostic. Challenge II has entry deadline in a few weeks. It is more geared towards protection and treatment of tbi.
Yes, it is very specifically geared to areas where AMBS has no dog in the fight. 'Challenge I' WAS the opportunity, as the long list of blood test awardees attests to.
The NFL, Under Armour and GE launched a second challenge, open now, to look for new innovations and materials that can protect the brain from traumatic injury and for new tools for tracking head impacts in real time.
GE & NFL Announce Sixteen Round One Winners of $20M Head Health Challenges
•Innovations could advance understanding of traumatic brain injury and improve diagnostic tools
•Breakthrough ideas include:
•A blood test designed to rapidly identify and measure traumatic brain injury;
•A brain imaging technique to identify connections broken in the brain after a traumatic brain injury
•An electroencephalography (EEG) that could become an in-the-field imaging test
January 23, 2014 09:30 AM Eastern Standard Time NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GE (NYSE: GE) and the NFL announced today 16 winners in the first stage of the $20 million “Head Health Challenge.” Each of the winners will receive a $300,000 award to advance their work to speed diagnosis and improve treatment for mild traumatic brain injury. GE and the NFL will provide mentorship, access to GE researchers and industry thought leaders with the opportunity for up to six of the awardees to win an additional $500,000 award in 2015.
The goal of the Head Health Challenge is to improve the safety of athletes, members of the military and society overall. The winners were selected from more than 400 entries from 27 countries, after having been reviewed and nominated by a panel of leading healthcare experts in brain research, imaging technologies, and advocates for advances in brain research.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said, “These studies hold the promise of advancing brain science in important ways. The health and safety of our players is our top priority, and this challenge extends that commitment to the general population as well. We hope the innovative approaches proposed by these winners will have a lasting impact on the treatment of head injuries.”
Sue Siegel, CEO of GE Ventures & healthymagination, said, “We launched the Challenge as a call to action to fast-track advancement in head health. The Challenge has shown us a remarkable number of breakthrough ideas that deserve attention, investment and further research.
By advancing the work of these winners, we will better understand brain injuries suffered by athletes and members of the military and improve our knowledge of the brain overall which could help improve our understanding of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.”
The Challenge award winners are:
•Banyan Biomarkers, Inc. Alachua, FL- Banyan Biomarkers, Inc. is developing a first of its kind point-of-care blood test to rapidly detect the presence of mild and moderate brain trauma to improve the medical management of head injured patients. Banyan Biomarkers researchers will work with the University of Florida on a sports concussion research study to analyze biomarkers, neurocognitive testing and neuroimaging on athletes with concussions.
•BrainScope Company, Inc. Bethesda, MD- BrainScope will work with the Purdue Neurotrauma Group to conduct a study in collegiate athletes using imaging biomarkers such as functional MRI (fMRI) and Diffuse Tensor Imaging (DTI) to potentially enhance BrainScope’s urgent care, handheld EEG-based traumatic brain injury detection technology. This study could provide a demonstration that the BrainScope system can function as a surrogate for these imaging biomarkers and as a field-based diagnostic for traumatic brain injury (TBI). This could potentially provide a more robust assessment of injury and recovery and lead to more objective return-to-play decisions. BrainScope devices under development are for investigational use only.
•University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Santa Barbara, CA- The UCSB Brain Imaging Center's laboratory is developing novel software tools for determining if the connections that transmit information across different parts of the brain are damaged after head injury. Using state-of-the-art MRI scans, UCSB is working to identify damage to individual connections anywhere along their path and determine which brain areas have become disconnected after injury.
•University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, CA- UCSF and Ayasdi, a Silicon Valley start-up solving complex problems with advanced mathematics and machine learning, are teaming to better serve patients and athletes who have suffered a concussion or mild traumatic brain injury. Applying Ayasdi’s novel technology to high-quality, detailed MRI and CAT scans of the brain, researchers aim to better identify patients who are more likely to experience persistent symptoms and need additional support following a concussion or mild traumatic brain injury.
•Cortical Metrics, LLC, Semora, NC- Cortical Metrics, LLC is a start-up company that was spun out of medical research conducted at the University of North Carolina. Researchers are developing a device that is shaped like a computer mouse that can connect to any computer or laptop. The device vibrates the fingertips and activates adjacent places in the brain that typically communicate with each other. A web-based computer program is being designed to measures a person’s brain health by determining how well those places in the brain communicate with each other. This type of communication - and the measurements - usually deteriorates with the severity of concussion and improves with recovery.
•ImmunArray, inc, Richmond, Virginia and Rehovot, Israel - Researchers at ImmunArray are working to confirm their discoveries in acute diagnosis and the connection between immune system response and the progression of a brain injury. This data could help determine the long-term effects of the injury, and will aid in the development of a simple blood test to diagnose a brain injury quickly and with certainty.
•Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN- Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine’s Center for Neuroimaging, with collaborators from St. Vincent Sports Performance, will use MRI to investigate how brain blood flow is altered after concussion in high school athletes. Blood flow provides oxygen and nutrients to the brain and is a critically important aspect of brain function, but little is known about the impact of concussion on brain blood flow in athletes. This study will advance understanding of concussion’s effect on brain blood flow in the period shortly after injury and the relationship of these changes to post-concussive symptoms and cognitive functioning.
•Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD- Researchers at Johns Hopkins will use positron emission tomography (PET), a type of molecular brain imaging scan, to study several markers in the brains of active NFL players. The aim is to determine if certain molecular changes, detectable non-invasively by PET, are part of the biological changes leading to depression and memory deficits in the aftermath of repetitive, sports-related head trauma.
•Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI- Using innovative MRI scanning technology, researchers at The Medical College of Wisconsin aim to determine the direct effects of sport-related concussions on brain structure and function. The aim of the study is to advance the discovery of more objective ways of diagnosing concussion, as well as determining when an athlete’s brain has fully recovered and the athlete is fit to return to play after concussion.
•University of Montana, Missoula, MT- Researchers at the University of Montana are working to determine blood-based biomarkers that indicate how the brain reacts following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Research to date has shown that TBI results in changes in how the brain operates and in levels of proteins and Ribonucleic acids (RNA). Identifying specific biomarkers will show how the TBI changes the brain and could help doctors with diagnosis and treatment.
•University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN- Researchers at the University of Notre Dame, in collaboration with mobile software company Contect Inc., are developing a mobile app to provides athletic trainers, coaches, physicians, and parents a fast, simple and more objective way to detect concussions. Unlike traditional concussion screening methods that require medical equipment, training, and take a longer time to administer, this mobile technology is being designed to recognize the changes in speech acoustics that occur with concussions. The anticipated result is a more objective, highly mobile concussion screening test that will take only two minutes to perform.
•University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA- Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and its clinical partner University of Pittsburgh Medical Center are working to link impairments from concussion with changes in the brain using an imaging technique called high definition fiber-tracking (HDFT). Combining clinical evaluation approaches with HDFT may improve identification and diagnosis of concussion, predict the consequences of this varied injury, and help to determine when it is safe to return to activity.
•Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada- Researchers at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre are working to develop an imaging method to identify patients and athletes at risk for secondary injury after a concussion. Current healthcare scans usually appear normal in these patients; however, after a concussion the ability for brain blood vessels to respond to physiological challenges is reduced. Using advanced MRI, the researchers aim to detect this reduction to help better diagnose, monitor response to treatment and guide decision-making after mild head injury. This could, for example, be a standard way of determining the proper time to “return to play” in hockey or football, or resume work or physical activity.
•Quanterix, Lexington, MA- Quanterix is at work to develop a simple blood test to aid in the detection of traumatic brain injury. Using its highly sensitive Simoa technology, Quanterix has been able to measure molecular signatures (biomarkers) of brain injury in blood. Quanterix’ goal is to provide a blood test that could speed the diagnosis of a concussion in a clinical setting and on the side-lines in a sports arena and therefore improve treatment.
•VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland - Researchers from University of Helsinki and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland aim to study the reaction of small molecules (such as cholesterol, glucose, amino acids) in the body after a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). Through this research they aim to determine the response of these small molecules which could allow for a diagnosis of mild TBI from a blood test.
•Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY- Weill Cornell Medical College will use positron emission tomography (PET) and advanced MRI technologies to determine the earliest known biological responses to brain injury in professional boxers with well-established diagnoses of dementia, football players with recent concussions, and control patients who have never sustained a head injury. This study could deliver a method for validating simpler biomarkers that can be used to measure the severity of concussions in ordinary medical settings. The Challenge judges were:
•Dr. William J. Heetderks, director of Extramural Science Programs at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), NIH;
•Dr. Walter Koroshetz, deputy director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) at the NIH;
•General Peter Chiarelli, USA (Ret.), chief executive officer of One Mind for Research;
•Colonel Dallas Hack, director of the Combat Casualty Care Research Program and the Chair, Joint Program Committee 6 (Combat Casualty Care), US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command; and •Dr. Geoff Manley, chief of neurosurgery at San Francisco General Hospital and Professor of Neurosurgery at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF).
Launched in March 2013, the Head Health Challenge is part of the Head Health Initiative a four-year, $60 million collaboration between GE and the NFL to speed diagnosis and improve treatment for mild traumatic brain injury.
The initiative includes a four-year, $40 million research and development program from the NFL and GE to evaluate and develop next generation imaging technologies to improve diagnosis that would allow for targeting treatment therapy for patients with mild traumatic brain injury.
In addition the NFL and GE launched two open innovation challenges to invest up to $10 million in research and technology development to better understand, diagnose and protect against brain injury. The NFL, Under Armour and GE launched a second challenge, open now, to look for new innovations and materials that can protect the brain from traumatic injury and for new tools for tracking head impacts in real time.
This second challenge will also award up to $10 million. Entries are welcome through January 30th. For additional details on this challenge, and to view the terms and conditions, visit www.nflgebrainchallenge.com.
Banyan bio markers and ambs have been working together for the last couple of years. Take a little time to google them together
Fully aware of that. Read my post again. No joint PR yet, nor anyting on the Banyan web site......yet. Absent a 'nod' from Banyan to AMBS neither us us knows what the 'working together' portends RE the grant.
Banyan's product can be/will be deployed to the sidelines of athletic contests.
AMBS' MANF TBI product is deployed to the side of lab rat cages.
No one, as far as is public, has talked about a Lympro 'off-label' use for TBI diagnosis in a practicioner's office, much less on the playing field sidelines.
The winners were selected from more than 400 entries from 27 countries, after having been reviewed and nominated by a panel of leading healthcare experts in brain research, imaging technologies, and advocates for advances in brain research.
Allow me to anticipate, preempt/'inoculate':
Breaking: "Panel of leading healthcare experts in brain research, imaging technologies, and advocates for advances in brain research repudiates AMBS, says 'no' to entry."
If so there would likely be a joint PR. So far not even a mention on the Banyan web site...but it's early.
If not, there goes the NFL/GE grant 'dot'.
January 23, 2014 09:30 AM Eastern Standard Time NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--GE (NYSE: GE) and the NFL announced today 16 winners in the first stage of the $20 million “Head Health Challenge.” Each of the winners will receive a $300,000 award to advance their work to speed diagnosis and improve treatment for mild traumatic brain injury. GE and the NFL will provide mentorship, access to GE researchers and industry thought leaders with the opportunity for up to six of the awardees to win an additional $500,000 award in 2015.
The goal of the Head Health Challenge is to improve the safety of athletes, members of the military and society overall. The winners were selected from more than 400 entries from 27 countries, after having been reviewed and nominated by a panel of leading healthcare experts in brain research, imaging technologies, and advocates for advances in brain research.
Classic 'off-label' application of Statins for Alzheimer's prevention?
Since we're unlikely to settle anything RE LymPro for AD...safety, efficacy, marketability, 'JV-ability'.... anytime soon, and since some people who've posted here are 'at risk' for AD, both knowingly due to heredity and unknowingly because it's a real 'crap shoot' for a lot of reasons, perhaps the following will be 'helpful':
Having high cholesterol puts you at risk of developing heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States. People of all ages and backgrounds can have high cholesterol. America's Cholesterol Burden
71 million American adults (33.5%) have high LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol.1
Only 1 out of every 3 adults with high LDL cholesterol has the condition under control.1
Less than half of adults with high LDL cholesterol get treatment.1 People with high total cholesterol have approximately twice the risk of heart disease as people with optimal levels. A desirable level is lower than 200 mg/dL.
The average total cholesterol level for adult Americans is about 200 mg/dL, which is borderline high risk.
Cholesterol levels linked to brain deposits that cause Alzheimer's
High good and low bad cholesterol are not just good for the heart but also the brain, suggests new research published in JAMA Neurology.
Study leader Bruce Reed, a professor of neurology at the University of California (UC) Davis, and associate director of its Alzheimer's Disease Center, says:
"Our study shows that both higher levels of HDL - good - and lower levels of LDL - bad - cholesterol in the bloodstream are associated with lower levels of amyloid plaque deposits in the brain."
He explains that while we already have long-standing evidence of raised cholesterol linked to a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's, their study is the first to link it to amyloid plaques in the brains of living people.
Prof. Reed says:
"Unhealthy patterns of cholesterol could be directly causing the higher levels of amyloid known to contribute to Alzheimer's, in the same way that such patterns promote heart disease."
AMSTERDAM — Two new studies may have somewhat allayed concerns about cognitive dysfunction being a possible adverse effect of statins.
The studies, both from Taiwan and reported at this week's European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2013, both suggest that statin drugs may instead be linked to lower rates of dementia in older people.
The first study of 58,000 patients showed a dose-related inverse relationship between statin use and new-onset nonvascular dementia. The second report, in 5221 patients with atrial fibrillation, found a lower incidence of dementia in patients taking statins compared with those not taking statins.
Classic 'off-label' indication of Statins for Alzheimer's prevention?
Since we're unlikely to settle anything RE LymPro for AD...safety, efficacy, marketability, 'JV-ability'.... anytime soon, and since some people who've posted here are 'at risk' for AD, both knowingly due to heredity and unknowingly because it's a real 'crap shoot' for a lot of reasons, perhaps the following will be 'helpful':
Having high cholesterol puts you at risk of developing heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States. People of all ages and backgrounds can have high cholesterol.
America's Cholesterol Burden
71 million American adults (33.5%) have high LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol.1
Only 1 out of every 3 adults with high LDL cholesterol has the condition under control.1
Less than half of adults with high LDL cholesterol get treatment.1 People with high total cholesterol have approximately twice the risk of heart disease as people with optimal levels. A desirable level is lower than 200 mg/dL.
The average total cholesterol level for adult Americans is about 200 mg/dL, which is borderline high risk.
Cholesterol levels linked to brain deposits that cause Alzheimer's
High good and low bad cholesterol are not just good for the heart but also the brain, suggests new research published in JAMA Neurology.
Study leader Bruce Reed, a professor of neurology at the University of California (UC) Davis, and associate director of its Alzheimer's Disease Center, says:
"Our study shows that both higher levels of HDL - good - and lower levels of LDL - bad - cholesterol in the bloodstream are associated with lower levels of amyloid plaque deposits in the brain."
He explains that while we already have long-standing evidence of raised cholesterol linked to a higher risk of developing Alzheimer's, their study is the first to link it to amyloid plaques in the brains of living people.
Prof. Reed says:
"Unhealthy patterns of cholesterol could be directly causing the higher levels of amyloid known to contribute to Alzheimer's, in the same way that such patterns promote heart disease."
AMSTERDAM — Two new studies may have somewhat allayed concerns about cognitive dysfunction being a possible adverse effect of statins.
The studies, both from Taiwan and reported at this week's European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2013, both suggest that statin drugs may instead be linked to lower rates of dementia in older people.
The first study of 58,000 patients showed a dose-related inverse relationship between statin use and new-onset nonvascular dementia. The second report, in 5221 patients with atrial fibrillation, found a lower incidence of dementia in patients taking statins compared with those not taking statins.
do not be surprised if AMBS Diagnostics is sold off in Spring, just in time for a major up-listing
personally speaking, I wouldn't put it past Gerald and the BOD to do exactly this....
Bercause of course they have offers on the table that aren't good enough to accept now, for a presumed safe and efficacious diagnostic for a disease for which there is no effective treatment?
Who's your lead suitor? The building owner, J&J, The company that knows the most about what LymPro is, or isn't, BD, or a 'dark horse'?
Does anyone know how much cash AMBS has and what their burn rate had been in 2013?
Very little cash. Unsustainable burn rate. AMBS financial doom often forecast to occur by some throughout latter half of '13 and to have happended by now or shortly from now.
Pretty much the same low cash and same unsustainable burn rate pertains now as then, and as they both did about .07 lower pps.
In other words, neither factor has provided much headwind for AMBS pps.
Not to say that they might not be impediments at some point, if not addressed.
I don't recall typing in that I am attributing the small dips to shorters, unless you're talking in broad terms.
C'mon, you know as well as I do that 'burn shorty' is the 'cudgel' that some AMBS longs wield whenever anyone challenges just about anything posted by those longs.
The concept of trading, with or without maintaining an AMBS core position, is offensive to many of them.
So broaden it out. And you tell me how much of an AMBS pps pullback has to kick in for it to credibly be attributed to 'shorty'.
Well you know the nice thing blackhawks? If it doesn't work out there will be plenty of folks strutting like peacocks and telling us they "said so".
Make you a deal. I won't 'strut'. After all, I need to see .0011 for 'break-even'.
Can you assure me that we won't read posts in the vein of 'HA, shorty got burned!' and 'how about those charts now?!' In other words can you apply your same standards to all posters?
My post is mostly a lament based upon the content of recent GLER PR's.
Tomorrow will hopefully stomp out a lot of this fear mongering.
And it's likely that the fear mopngering will be supplanted with the dispiriting fact that GLER still has nothing but forward looking statements to entice....like Lucy holding the football...still more 'accumulation', in the teeth of still more dilution.
I know that's VERY unfair...............sorry, Lucy.
You've taken your "who knows, maybe he just read about..." and appended Sandoz Corp's web statement about its provider partner strategy as though it strengthens your inference.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
