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.
False premises for a number of reasons, not least of which is this: if CMTH failed to deliver sufficient news/info to substantiate the PPS when it rose organically to .07, why should we think they’d be any more capable of doing so if/when it rises artificially to .07 following a R/S?
Except for the fact that MANY companies with NEGATIVE EPS are nonetheless trading in DOLLARS. So much of this is speculative valuation—and in that context the impact of multiple million share counts matters A LOT, even at a single .0001 tick at a time.
Execute the R/S and anyone associated with this stock in ANY capacity will be hounded FOREVER by their association with it. The internet NEVER forgets...
Take a million shares at .0005: each uptick of .0001 results in $100 gain (realized, of course, upon sale).
1 million shares divided by 150=6,667
6,667 *.0001= 67¢
See the difference now?
Unless he’s prepared to get the PPS to $10-20 ASAP, this is a disaster for CURRENT shareholders. PERIOD.
I and others bit on this bait 2 years ago, and invited many others to join us with their hard-earned money as we rose to .07–only to fall with an embarrassing thud down to unimaginably low depths for ANY firm commercializing even the most worthless thing (much less CaverStem and the rest). Fool me once...and let me know when we hit .07 without a R/S.
Sadly they have produced ZERO evidence to merit any other assessment. Two explanations: (1) that ammunition doesn’t exist or (2) they are incapable of/unwilling to release it. A pretty straightforward equation analytically...
Nice to see you here again . Only a few of us remain from the glory days of early-mid 2018. I truly miss the energy and excitement of that time, which has hardly abated for me—though it HAS been difficult to maintain equal energy in the virtually complete absence of news/events that would materially substantiate and justify an increasingly higher PPS.
Moreover, if, as we believe, 2.0 has at least equal efficacy compared to 1.0 and WITHOUT the need for centrifuge, the value of announcing the results of the FIRST trial by formal publication as soon as possible is hardly useless. Are you not trying to build a long-term following? Marketing 101: promote what is worthy of promotion as early and consistently as possible. This will result in a chain of increasingly interested investors who follow your chain of progressive updates. The only rationale for not following this approach is if they want to keep the PPS DOWN—which is hardly in the shareholders’ interest.
I surmised that they were conducting a SECOND trial with the 2.0 version of CaverStem —but they need to state as much EXPLICITLY in narrative, descriptive words within a PR, not merely in dry grid format.
Agreed completely. My only complaint is that I have yet to hear a rationale for the slow (now glacial) progress. They’ve been talking about commercialization of CaverStem for approaching 2 years—and yet we seem to have completed a mere 50ish procedures during the entire quarter reported on 9/30/19. Moreover, we have heard NOTHING on Russia or cachexia, among other items of interest.
For what it’s worth, $1MM could buy (back) 1B shares at .001–how much more could it do at these levels?
What is “it” (“pull it off”)? Thanks for clarifying this disembodied “it”
Wow: bid 95M shares vs ask 460K shares
As for the BK argument, what happens to shareholders when their firm declares bankruptcy...? They are typically wiped out. While the philosopher and the humanitarian in me may hold interest in the “longer term advances” such as may be made by successor companies, I’m here to make money—and BKs don’t make money, they lose it. I believed in BLSP for the grants and contracts from the start—and none of that has materially changed for me
Thanks for the education! As for the GDP angle, I’m not seeing the “pop” provided by the Netherlands, which
Is looking UP at countries like Thailand, Poland, and Malaysia (among others):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
That’s good to know! So what’s the end game? Roughly 6B OS now, with I think maybe 14B AS. Been at .0001 for quite a while. Any chance at all in your view that they AVOID need for a R/S at some point? Might be worth buying a lotto ticket for a few million shares—but not if they will be fractionalized.
Yeah—something like a whopping 50 procedures performed, based on the number reported for the quarter revealed in the September 2019 10-Q (by my rough estimate). Woohoo! That’s definitely pathetic “sparkler” material (on this New Year’s Eve)...
+1 they’re cooked
There’s almost no one of that—or any other type frankly—around here anymore. It’s really staggering how they behave allowed what was SUPPOSED to represent game-changing medicine in several key demand areas to literally die on the vine. If I hadn’t lived it, I’d never believe it...
I heard they’re due to be released on the 9th—of never.
Trial ended on 8.28.18–soon to be 1.5 years ago
Question: With SIX business days remaining in 2019, how can one bring the “fruit of labor to the forefront as we close out the year” without actions and communications that demonstrate both those labors and their fruits (which also, it is implied, would have a positive effect on increasing shareholder value as measured by the PPS)?
Answer: You can’t.
People have been saying that for TWO YEARS: virtually no one is left around here from that period...
+1
Maybe you’ll have better luck than I did—and actually receive a response.
So eerily quiet—no movement whatsoever. Who makes the next move and toward what end?
You asked did they “lie when they made that claim?” This wording presumes logically that you have one specific claim in mind, about which you’re asking (otherwise you should have written “THOSE claimS”—which would have led to an entirely different line of follow-up questioning)—hence my question (again) to you: WHICH claim?
Which claim—the 80% efficacy claim posted recently on the CaverStem website? Why would they open themselves to massive legal problems by making a baseless claim that they were not fully prepared to substantiate?
Bear in mind (1) that the vast majority of their clinical trial subjects were UNRESPONSIVE to pills (estimated at around 9M men in the US alone) and (2) we achieve statistical significance with a positive correlation of two factors at around 60%. Obviously there is no 100%-effective solution for everybody (we just talked about 9M people), but it should be noted that the clinical patients were “the toughest of the challenged”—one naturally wonders what the CaverStem efficacy percentage would be among the less challenging (more responsive) millions of men...
Interesting claim—given that the CaverStem website now contains prominent mention that the procedure is 80% effective. This wasn’t there before. Now, 2 possibilities suggest themselves: EITHER they inserted a baseless claim (which would expose them to legal difficulties of various sorts), OR there IS a “there there.”
Show me a DOCUMENT—not your typing—and I’ll believe you
My point is that this quote does not constitute the contract—it is FROM the contract. Neither you nor I know all the provisions and terms of the contract.
You haven’t read “the contract”—none of us have. Your quote is from the PR
All (X?) billion shares by now. Tim’s transaction alone added half a billion, no?
+1. Irrefutable. I see both (all) sides