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.
How does that require that SOMEONE ELSE performed “the same procedure”? We both know that CMTH has conducted studies and trials both here and abroad.
The likelihood that whatever you’re referring to is the EXACT same type of cell, equipment, and procedure as CMTH has developed is ZERO
I dunno, why don’t you tell us?
By way of context: all my criticisms of mgmt are predicated on the belief that they plan to bring products to commercial market, rather than selling them—they have always said this. If, however, they were planning to sell, e.g. CaverStem, they WOULD want to wait for this week’s release, a future publication on short and long term efficacy, AND several Qs worth of fins in order to determine a fair valuation baseline.
No—those who want to remove doubt about what was communicated, to whom, and when send an email—preferably with a return-receipt acknowledgement
Easier to document
Yeah—why dilute for .05-.10 a share when you can dilute for .0005. Brain dead. Ain’t no cure for stupid.
+1. Boy have they delivered!
We were also headed to .10-.25 by 12/31/2018...
Again, communication is so critical—and yet SO lacking here. Over a year ago they released a PR about a renowned cardiologist (Timothy Henry) joining their clinical team. Since then, CRICKETS—just as also with Gary Mells, that woman who was supposedly an online marketing guru and Dr. Gershman’s main online marketer (alas I can’t recall more about her than that), cachexia, and Russia. Bear in mind that I’m recalling all this right now FROM MEMORY: they MUST do better. UNACCEPTABLE.
Can’t you tell how VALUABLE all our patents and IP are? It’s like a mortuary around here!
Feel free to apply more lipstick to this business management pig, and smile while your share count is cut by a 1:150 factor (and why wouldn’t it go down AGAIN after the R/S, given their track record?). If they had been APPROPRIATELY aggressive and adequately strategic, the higher PPS would have meant that Tim and Don would NOT have needed to dilute over 1B shares to generate enough cash. They got caught unprepared and with their pants down. This episode will be their Waterloo.
In THEORY, fair points. However, CELZ has been a known entity in pennyland for over two years. When I discovered it, the PPS was in the .015 range. In PRACTICE how many people invest in ANY equity NOT believing that the stock is solid and/or is backed by a company that offers something of sensational business value? Not many. All POTENTIAL in the world is not worth squat without EXECUTION. When asked once how he felt about his team’s execution, Tampa Bay Bucs coach John McKay resounded: “I’m all for it.”
Has it ever occurred to you to question how is it that ONLY WE have discovered this “diamond in my the rough that is worth SO much”—despite the fact that “14 patents” with serious potential to “revolutionize the treatment of long-standing problematic medical conditions” are currently valued at FIVE-HUNDREDTHS of ONE PENNY? How can this analytic possibly be valid?
Gonna dilute all 6B A/S? Once again, “we delivered”!
I wonder if that 20M share dump was SCR—he mentioned being fed up with “all the negativity” yesterday to the point of being ready to sell his 20M shares
Actually, wouldn’t it be better for the PPS to be higher in that scenario? Presumably his salary would be a fixed dollar amount—which at a higher price would require FEWER shares. If his goal was to help THE COMPANY, that would be better.
INFLECTION
Remember this beaut? “Infection point”?! More like Hindenburg, Part Deux—five months and 1.7B more dilutive shares later:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Creative-Medical-Technology-Holdings-Inc-CELZ-30978/
To simplify: as I understand it, the material difference between CaverStem 1 and 2 is that Version 2 doesn’t require a centrifuge. A fortiori, to the extent that efficacy was present in 1.0, you would WANT to tout that, given that 2.0 merely involves a SIMPLER process—and with the same, if not better, effectiveness. There simply is no rational reason to delay so much for so long—unless their ultimate desire is to keep the PPS DOWN for whatever reasons.
There is nothing in what “just came out today” that anyone who knows anything about this company didn’t surmise time be true 2 years ago! This article doesn’t advance the argument—and it could easily have been published more than a year ago (when we were still in the .01-.02 range...
Very nice, doc—but why, then, are we trading in microscopic fractions of a penny when this very area is and has been our exclusive focus, both clinically and commercially, for approaching 2 years?
“Show me the money!”
SAD reality: if they had delivered this a year ago, we’d be somewhere between .10 and .25 now, imo. It ran to .07 on the premise that CaverStem WOULD generate significant revs. Now, approaching two years later, the market is totally unresponsive to their activities—and what response the market HAS shown over that period has been decidedly negative. That’s where we are—don’t you feel “valued” and “delivered for” (with the R/S still looming too)?
And my response to you is that there are MANY companies that announce INTENTION to conduct a R/S, only to cancel it in the end. Another holding of mine was supposed to execute a R/S in August 2019–and yet here I sit in January 2020, with my share count completely unaltered and undiminished. I would respectfully submit that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else outside CMTH management knows for certain what they are up to.
The contents of the SEC Form 14 dictates the form that such communication must take. Period.
No. We all saw the FILING with the SEC on 1/3. As you know, they are required to send communication (by regular or electronic mail) to all shareholders of record as of 12/2019 letting them know about the R/S. Without that, the R/S doesn’t happen (just as it didn’t happen following the filing of the ORIGINAL Form 14. So again I ask: have you received direct, personal notice of the type I just described? I have not (and have been a shareholder continuously since February 2018–which obligates them to contact me).
That’s the amended Form 14. Did you receive the actual direct communication as a shareholder?
Don’t you know it’s common practice to engage in COMMERICIALIZING something BEFORE you determine and declare its safety? THAT is the tortuous logic we are required to embrace right now in order to take them at their word—given that they have been commercializing CaverStem for almost 2 years. Silly, to say the least...
How frustrating is it that we are essentially no closer to getting CLEAR answers to critical business questions than we were 2 years ago? It is imperative that they answer these ASAP so that their shareholders—about whom they claim to care so much—can make FULLY informed decisions.
Point of order: why were principally-involved participants telling the world (via social media) about CaverStem’s efficacy two years ago? How were they better equipped to speak of it THEN than they are NOW?
Yes, I saw that. However, that information doesn’t tell us (among other things):
Range of scores, percentage of subjects who showed higher post-treatment scores relative to their pre-treatment baselines, and any diachronic/durative improvements observed over X timeframe post-procedure.
Forgive the pun, but we have been d*cking around with vagaries for over two years!
To date they have provide almost ZERO clear exposition on:
1. Efficacy shown in CaverStem trials
2. Comprehensive and detailed business plan for CMTH overall
3. Comprehensive and detailed strategy for physician recruitment
4. Costs and profit margins for CaverStem—their only commercial source of revenues
5. Any follow-up on Russia or cachexia
Other than that, their communications have been diligent, competent, and compelling!
+1. When folks show repeatedly that they don’t care about your perspective, BELIEVE THEM.
Agreed. However, the time for generalized, whitewashed, soft-shoe PRs (and communication in general) is OVER!!! Where’s the beef?!?!
And what exactly is that PR going to contain by way of scientifically/medically-oriented data that the article DIDN’T contain? Will it say “the CaverStem procedure is safe and encouraging”—which we could already have surmised based on any number of informational factors ALREADY available to us WITHOUT the article?
I was ready to drop another $10K on the supposition that we would get efficacy numbers—after the better part of two years. Unreal. This article does NOTHING to raise the PPS in anything close to a dramatic way, IMO. Moreover (and therefore) R/S is almost a certainty...
“Table 2” contains vague and oblique data that COULD be read—at a VERY generic level—as positive, but nowhere are we told (neither in this table, nor anywhere else that I can find in the article) bottom-line efficacy percentages. How many patients who received which version showed what levels of improvement, how many of each showed minimal improvement, and how many (if any) showed performance worse than the baseline? This article is supposed to be “a game-changer”?!
Contains no claims about efficacy results/rates/percentages...