Thanks John for clearing this up and for posting it way back. So my question now is why send an email out TODAY? What is the purpose of the timing??? What is the real message here???

Isn't this the same study performed at University of CA, San Francisco that Someone (I'm racking my brain to remember) posted on this board this past weekend???

Fireworks in July would be awesome but like that old saying goes "a watched pot never boils". Lol! I just had to get that out because the anticipation is really problematic for some. Just my opinion of course but checking the PPS every few weeks may yield actual results. And of course there will be fireworks in July anyways so enjoy them and the family :)

I'm perpetually optimistic so I'm gonna take it a step further and say that I think they planned the study to take longer because they anticipated handling some adverse effects but they haven't quite materialized. There I said it... GO CTIX!!!

That's exactly what I thought! They, whomever "they" are planned the study under the assumption that it would take longer than it has. So now, "they" are going to do whatever they had planned on doing just as it wraps up??? Something is up. I obviously don't know what but if they are just having the meeting as a check in the box to cover their butts, it is comical and almost wasteful now.

That's what I always see and it's what grinds my gears the most. There is no need for MMs since about 1970 yet they continue to hook up their cronies. Technology has replaced the Beta/VHS and the 8 track and cassette but we can't have a software program using the same amount of ram as a pocket calculator ensure supply and demand are met??? It's really infuriating to know that thieves control most market transactions.

Dr.Menon and Leo know exactly what we got when it comes to Kevetrin because the the study design is straight to the point when it comes to secondary outcomes. They are doing imaging studies and serum marker collections up through 6 months post baseline so by now they should have plenty of data and the further we go in the trial the more statistically significant it becomes so when it comes time we can apply for BReak Through designation.

This is my opinion also but I feel confident that this year will be the year for CTIX!!!!

From clinical trials website:

Change in tumor size [ Time Frame: baseline and 2 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Change in tumor size based on RECIST criteria version 1.1. using MRI, CT scan, and/or standard of care imaging

Change in tumor size [ Time Frame: baseline and 4 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Change in tumor size based on RECIST criteria version 1.1. using MRI, CT scan, and/or standard of care imaging

Change in tumor size [ Time Frame: baseline and 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
Change in tumor size based on RECIST criteria version 1.1. using MRI, CT scan, and/or standard of care imaging

Decrease in serum tumor marker [ Time Frame: baseline and 1 month ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
A decrease in a tumor marker in the serum may also suggest evidence of anti-tumor efficacy. The following tumor markers will be evaluated: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), Cancer Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), or other appropriate markers. The choice of the individual tumor markers will be based on the type of tumor of the patient and the testing that has preceded the patient's participation in this study.

Decrease in serum tumor marker [ Time Frame: baseline and 2 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
A decrease in a tumor marker in the serum may also suggest evidence of anti-tumor efficacy. The following tumor markers will be evaluated: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), Cancer Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), or other appropriate markers. The choice of the individual tumor markers will be based on the type of tumor of the patient and the testing that has preceded the patient's participation in this study.

Decrease in serum tumor marker [ Time Frame: baseline and 3 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
A decrease in a tumor marker in the serum may also suggest evidence of anti-tumor efficacy. The following tumor markers will be evaluated: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), Cancer Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), or other appropriate markers. The choice of the individual tumor markers will be based on the type of tumor of the patient and the testing that has preceded the patient's participation in this study.

Decrease in serum tumor marker [ Time Frame: baseline and 4 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
A decrease in a tumor marker in the serum may also suggest evidence of anti-tumor efficacy. The following tumor markers will be evaluated: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), Cancer Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), or other appropriate markers. The choice of the individual tumor markers will be based on the type of tumor of the patient and the testing that has preceded the patient's participation in this study.

Decrease in serum tumor marker [ Time Frame: baseline and 5 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
A decrease in a tumor marker in the serum may also suggest evidence of anti-tumor efficacy. The following tumor markers will be evaluated: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), Cancer Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), or other appropriate markers. The choice of the individual tumor markers will be based on the type of tumor of the patient and the testing that has preceded the patient's participation in this study.

Decrease in serum tumor marker [ Time Frame: baseline and 6 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
A decrease in a tumor marker in the serum may also suggest evidence of anti-tumor efficacy. The following tumor markers will be evaluated: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), Cancer Antigen 125 (CA125), Cancer Antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), Cancer Antigen 15-3 (CA15-3), Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), or other appropriate markers. The choice of the individual tumor markers will be based on the type of tumor of the patient and the testing that has preceded the patient's participation in this study.

Changes in the biomarker p21 in peripheral blood lymphocytes [ Time Frame: baseline and 7 hours ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
For biomarker analysis, p21 expression, assayed by qPCR, in peripheral blood lymphocytes after Kevetrin administration.

Changes in the biomarker p21 in peripheral blood lymphocytes [ Time Frame: baseline and 24 hours ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
For biomarker analysis, p21 expression, assayed by qPCR, in peripheral blood lymphocytes after Kevetrin administration.

Doc J, if this is true and tomorrow becomes a turning point for K I will name the Lake I intend to buy "Doc J's" lake in your honor.

ASCO seemed very restrictive as well... Too many rules, so I'd say that we really don't need to be there and by us skipping it this year we may get an earful here soon. I'm sure if Dr.Mennon or Leo felt there was a worthwhile ROI we would be there.

"swing traders for their vending machine money."

That made my day. I really laughed out loud!

We used to have days like this way back when. When I first bought in we sometimes would have even lower volume but then anticipation of catalysts brought some new investors in and the PPS went up along with avg volume. I think this summer's long list of catalysts will generate the next pop and leg up so just sit back and enjoy the ride and of course go CTIX!!!

I agree. Only a deal or completion of K phase I will bring more volume and the resulting increase in PPS.

Worth the wait!

Averages can be skewed easily. Didn't really heavily on them to paint an EXACT picture.

Mike, the Market has yet to factor in Poly assets which is really getting old but here soon all those sitting on the fence will have jump in because Brillacidin is gonna burn that fence down!!!

GO CTIX!!!

Not gonna happen without a HUGE wallet paying the bill so for now a reverse split is inevitable.

I'm thinking you may be on to something and I hope you are! It is possible that there's some deals a brewing!

Go CTIX!!!

I've marked my Calendar since the count down has been reset. Hoping for an early 4th of July around here. :)


Go CTIX!!!

You know where I stand... I'm in the 31+ day club and hope that this time we see it and reap the rewards!!!

This is why I don't sweat not having a PR every week. One day we will have a month off and then BAM!

Not an easy read but check it out and tell me how you interpret it :)


https://www.sec.gov/answers/quiet.htm

You are all probably sick of me saying so but we need 30 days of required silence for a big deal so as far as I'm concerned a few more weeks before another pr can be the BEST thing to happen yet!

Hoping for 30 days so we can get a meaningful PR with partnership deal.

Well said 58. This isn't some shabby $500 overdraft protection on a checking account extended to a new college grad. This is REAL money and a REALLY big deal for a company yet to make a penny.

Correct... 10 to 1 reverse split to be exact.

Cabel, this is what I've been saying. It could mean GREAT things on the horizon!

Bobby, if a partnership were on the horizon then a quiet period is mandatory.

I've said this before but I think it's important to mention again: "I like a quiet period as it's mandatory before a big deal".

We live in an age where we are bombarded by constant data flow but the absence of data is not always a bad thing. I am very optimistic that there could be some deals being hammered out behind the scenes because of all the NDAs out there.

The problem with the protocol as stated is that many will not return and receive the 2nd dose to complete the treatment. Bs course would be better because this is not a concern.

I see the reigns letting go so you are probably spot on!

There isn't much to gain by this but I sincerely believe the stock is manipulated. This is based on our low volume and contrarian moves. It's just my two cents and doesn't lend much to the board I know, but if I'm right there are powers that be with deep pockets that want to scoop up every share they can on the cheap... Human nature.

TheProgressive, seeing that the company is on the ball and always looking forward, I believe that the P 2/3 trials that were in the works prior to this required FDA study are standing by ready for a green light to begin. I don't see why they would start all over from square one. Secondly, if by chance they did have to start from scratch in setting up the p 2/3 trials that CTIX would already have taken steps in that direction. I think the start if the 2/3 will be seamless from our perspective.

My 2 cents go CTIX

Getting P out of neutral and back into gear is huge. We are now moving forward on what used to be everyone's insurance in case K fizzled so I don't think any negative market reaction is warranted.

Go CTIX

INH, my personal opinion is to sit back and let Doc Menon do the driving. He knows the road to success much better than us.

I just want to say that the only people running for the doors are week hands or short-term traders. That is all folks, no need for looky-Lous here!

Go ctix!!!!!

You're welcome! This low volume reminds of when I first jumped on board and it's not bothersome to me in the least. It just means no short plays that's all.

You nailed it! A totally logical reason!

This is not market sentiment but manipulation and the MMs and their cronies are the winners.

***sorry for the vent GO CTIX!!!

The MMs can't stop the science!!!!

I'm so sick of MMs. I looks like premarket BS taking place.

Thanks Gov. Those are some nasty side effects and it lolls like those w liver/kidney/heart problems should avoid daptomyacin so as long as b is safer it's a winner from that angle but if not, can still be a winner from the patient compliance (short duration) and lack of pathogenic resistance.