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.
Bucket shop band of merry misfits must be having a luncheon conference call with the company.
Just wait for the new deluge of spin nuggets.
Some folks here will never get the pattern, Thunderforce1. Their 'hope' emotions overtake sound judgement and reasoning.
You are getting it for sure - there are several other reasons for no 'contract' yet, see earlier posts about this.
Isn't the REAL PATTERN with PSTI Leadership 'No Contracts?'...…….. Think about it.
It is highly suspected that PSTI will Sell its FIRST 'Accelerated Review Voucher' from the FDA, if so granted, to avoid further dillution.
The strength of the data and medical need will propel the process anyway.
Louder than the Market?!
Obviously Not loud enough. Maybe if their data could pass the smell test with the NEJM, JAMA, BLOOD, ETAL. it would have a greater impact on medical science.
What is the 'impact factor' of this latest journal?
Look it up impact factor is a real thing. You see, these revered journals don't publish Company Funded, studies with "consultant" investigators.
Good one!!! We can all sing along to the camp for song !
There are 8 other messages for you to mock. Let's go!!
Once a penny stock pump and dump, always a penny stock pump and DUMP.
JUST remember, IT took reverse stock splits and questionable 'miracle' MD and company claims prior to patient deaths to move out over $0.99....
Ashes to Ashes and Dust to Dust, Replace the leadership, It seems we MUST!
Since when do you look at charts and data?
Looks like someone's Mantra here flaps which ever way the wind blows.
Yes, we agree. This one is stuck and getting dizzy.
Wrong! Institutional holdings of psti are lower than Any of its peer group. Strikingly low, actually. Google it and see the truth.
Likely due to psti's less than stellar reputation, IMHO.
And another one of my favorite recent quotes...
"In fact there's an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy requirements!"
Did you really mean to type this? Nothing shows more 'fake smarts' and a lack of serious medical acumen than a statement like this. IMHO. There are examples too numerous to count where this is NOT the case.
Please refer to the earlier posted definition (as requested) of a FACT.
Auto1
Monday, 09/24/18 01:07:06 AM
Re: zzaatt post# 15864
0
Post # of 15945
What was said was pretty straight forward.
"The "geniuses" I defer to are the physician scientists doing the actual work. The reason you can still buy PSTI at current sale prices is precisely because the "market" is too stupid to assess the most reliable information available."
The quote alone possesses a remarkable level of "fairly low level in terms of intellectual requirement"
I could NOT AGREE MORE WITH YOU!!
"A doctor who treated one of the patients (who died) called it a 'medical miracle'."
"Zami Aberman, Pluristem's chief executive officer, told Bloomberg News that because 'we saw significant improvement in the blood count, we declared a successful treatment'." -In explaining the timing of the 2nd patient death.
What was said was pretty straight forward.
"The "geniuses" I defer to are the physician scientists doing the actual work. The reason you can still buy PSTI at current sale prices is precisely because the "market" is too stupid to assess the most reliable information available."
The quote alone possesses a remarkable level of "fairly low level in terms of intellectual requirement"
I could NOT AGREE MORE WITH YOU!!
"A doctor who treated one of the patients (who died) called it a 'medical miracle'."
"Zami Aberman, Pluristem's chief executive officer, told Bloomberg News that because 'we saw significant improvement in the blood count, we declared a successful treatment'." -In explaining the timing of the 2nd patient death.
Ahhhhhh, yesssss… What's happening now: "I have the CURE in my pocket" with what you now know about 'psti history' and claims of 'success', 'cures' and the like - What's happening now, is just as chillingly reckless as 2012. How quickly they forget. IMHO.
Why do we think it will work in Hem/Onc. this time around?
zzaatt
Sunday, 09/23/18 06:39:37 PM
Re: EichKing post# 15912
0
Post # of 15943
Quote:
18 years and this PATHETIC excuse of a stock has only produced a clinical III because of accelerated pathways
Irrelevant! What matters is what's happening NOW!.
At least read this part:
Immunomodulatory placental-expanded, mesenchymal stromal cells improve muscle function following hip arthroplasty
Tobias Winkler Carsten Perka Philipp von Roth Alison N. Agres Henning Plage Bernd Preininger Matthias Pumberger Sven Geissler Esther Lukasiewicz Hagai Racheli Ofir … See all authors
First published: 19 September 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12316
Conflict of interest
Tobias Winkler, Carsten Perka, and Georg N. Duda are members of a clinical advisory board of Pluristem Ltd for future indications. Tobias Winkler, Carsten Perka, Georg N. Duda, and Philipp von Roth filed a patent together with Pluristem Ltd. Esther Lukasiewicz Hagai, Racheli Ofir, Lena Pinzur, and Eli Eyal are current or former employees of Pluristem Ltd. Tobias Winkler, Petra Reinke, and Hans-Dieter Volk received in the past consulting fees from Pluristem Ltd. but not for this project.
Oh yes. I'm not surprised, you said you didn't read it the first time.
Hmmmm. This happened since 2008. Doesn't seem like Juggernaut material. IMHO. Actually, as described below - Zami, etal, declared victory, stopped following up with the patient, and then spiked the football after reporting the 7year-olds death. And we wonder why no institutions trust ANYTHING that is put out here.
Sadly, the same posters you hear from today, with unhinged claims of efficacy and safety prey on the hopes of suffering patients and lead the uninformed investors to slaughter, without a conscious. IMHO. This is the same company from its inception, nothing new just the same pump-n-dump schemes fostered by re-named posters...
https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_93865
Critically ill patient dies after Pluristem claims stem cell treatment a 'success'
12 November 2012
By Dr Daniel Grimes
Appeared in BioNews 681
A biotechnology company has come under fire after reporting the success of its 'life-saving' stem cell based therapies ahead of a major stock sale, which occurred before investors became aware of news that a patient who had received its treatment had died.
Two out of the three patients referred to in the relevant company press releases have now died, although no link between the deaths and the treatment has been suggested. The patients, affected by bone marrow disease, cancer and leukaemia, had exhausted all other treatment options and were at risk of 'imminent death', the company has emphasised.
Pluristem Therapeutics, an Israel-based stem cell company, had seen its stocks rise dramatically between May and September this year on the back of announcements that three patient's lives had been saved by its experimental stem cell therapies. A doctor who treated one of the patients called it a 'medical miracle'.
On 19 September, Pluristem completed a shares sale that generated $34 million for research expenses. However, it made no mention that one week before the sale one of the three patients – a seven-year-old girl with a bone marrow disease – had died. Subsequently, in a press release Pluristem announced that a second patient had died, although it is not clear when the death occurred.
In a statement, Pluristem denied that it knew of the girl's death at the time of the sale and that it withheld information from investors. 'The company did not learn of this fact until after the financing was completed', it said. The statement related that Pluristem was not monitoring the patient after she left hospital and that she had returned to her home country of Romania. Furthermore, it said there was 'no connection between the [stem cell treatment administered] and the death of the patient'.
The company has stood by its earlier announcements. Zami Aberman, Pluristem's chief executive officer, told Bloomberg News that because 'we saw significant improvement in the blood count, we declared a successful treatment'. The patients received treatment under the compassionate use programme, which allows experimental therapies to be used when no other treatment options are available. Pluristem said that the extended survival of the two patients that have subsequently died 'exceeded longevity expectations'. It added that, 'the unfortunate deaths of the patients do not diminish these results'.
-Anything to get another shameless plug in...can you imagine?
It is not been suggested that Pluristem has breached any laws by its announcements or subsequent stock sale. John Nester, a spokesperson for the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) told Bloomberg that the law requires companies 'to disclose information that a reasonable investor would consider important when deciding whether to buy, sell or hold a security'. It is not presently clear whether the SEC is investigating.
Most companies do not report on the results of compassionate treatments because of fears of raising false hope on the basis of a small number of cases. Christopher Bravery, an independent regulatory consultant told Bloomberg that such cases are 'purely anecdotal' and bear little statistical significance.
Pluristem said in its statement: 'Compassionate use cases are entirely experimental and last resort efforts in desperate situations and obviously not predictive of ultimate success or failure. Further, adverse results from causes unrelated to the subject therapy are also irrelevant in the evaluation of that therapy'.
According to Globes, several investment bankers have praised Pluristem for its 'transparency', saying that the company was 'maintaining a wonderful relationship with the capital market'.
Others have questioned the pitch of the initial sale. 'Such press releases risk misleading investors by creating overly optimistic account of scientific research', said Dr Leigh Turner, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Centre for Bioethics. 'More importantly, press releases describing miracles and life-saving cures are harmful because they give seriously ill individuals an unrealistic account of effectiveness of experimental stem cell interventions'.
Pluristem's stem cell product, PLX cell treatment, is not currently approved for human use but has been involved in clinical trials. In the USA, unapproved treatments may be used for seriously ill patients where there is no treatment available.
SOURCES & REFERENCES
Girl Dies as Pluristem Sells on Gains With Miracle Cells
Bloomberg | 8 November 2012
How to Succeed At Shaving Millions Off A Company's Market Cap or Lie Trying
Reuters | 9 November 2012
Pluristem Comments on Article Published on Bloomberg
Pluristem (press release) | 9 November 2012
Pluristem 'miracle cure' girl died; investors not told
Globes | 8 November 2012
Pluristem: Second Patient With 'Life-Saving' Cells Died
Bloomberg | 9 November 2012
IT's not right. However, we do have the lowest amount of institutional ownership and interest than any and all of our peers.
This is probably one of the reason's why. IMHO
As some here say... psti since 2008...
but, this was as recent as 2012. The sad part is that the same posters that touted this 'miracle' fake then, are the same ones doing it again, today. Literally, today.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/2875876-pluristem-therapeutics-questionable-ethics-and-bucket-shop-coverage
Those that choose to forget their history are destined to repeat it!
https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/pluristem-second-patient-life-saving-cells-died
Pluristem Therapeutics Reveals Second Patient Death
Published: Nov 09, 2012
Pluristem Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:PSTI) (TASE:PLTR), a leading developer of placenta-based cell therapies, offered comments on an article published in Bloomberg on November 7, 2012. Pluristem has submitted a direct request to Bloomberg to publish a correction because the article it published is factually inaccurate and misleading.
The subject of the article was a pediatric patient who was critically ill, in imminent danger of death and who had exhausted all other treatments. The patient was treated on a compassionate use basis in Israel, and was not part of Pluristem's ongoing clinical program. The patient was able to leave the hospital and survived six months, the last four of them in her home country of Romania. Pluristem was not monitoring the patient and learned of her death at the discretion of her family and physician. In addition, the formal report relating to the death clearly stated that there was no connection between the PLX cell treatment and the death of the patient.
Pluristem has requested Bloomberg issue a correction specific to the article's claim and implication that Pluristem knew of the death of this patient at the time of a recent capital raising transaction and withheld this information from its investors. This is not correct. The Company did not learn of this fact until after the financing was completed.
Pluristem wishes to emphasize that compassionate use cases are entirely experimental and last resort efforts in desperate situations and obviously not predictive of ultimate success or failure. Further, adverse results from causes unrelated to the subject therapy are also irrelevant in the evaluation of that therapy.
In situations where Pluristem conducts clinical trials, it follows disclosure standards consistent with industry practice and applicable law, based on data made available to it after appropriate analysis. In response to the publicity surrounding this event, Pluristem wishes to make it clear that three patients were given compassionate use treatment with Pluristem's PLX cells. All three had failed all other treatment and were at risk of imminent death. The pediatric patient referred to in the Bloomberg article survived for six months, another patient survived for four months, and the third is still alive. Pluristem believes that these results exceeded longevity expectations. The unfortunate deaths of the patients do not diminish these results.
About Pluristem Therapeutics Inc.
Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq:PSTI) (TASE:PLTR) is a leading developer of placenta-based cell therapies. The Company's patented PLX (PLacental eXpanded) cells are a drug delivery platform that releases a cocktail of therapeutic proteins in response to a host of local and systemic inflammatory and ischemic diseases. PLX cells are grown using the company's proprietary 3D micro-environmental technology and are an "off-the-shelf" product that requires no tissue matching prior to administration. Pluristem is focusing on the use of PLX cells administered locally to treat systemic diseases and potentially obviating the need to use the intravenous route.
Data from two phase I studies indicate that Pluristem's first PLX product candidate, PLX-PAD, is safe and potentially effective for the treatment of end stage peripheral artery disease when given locally. Additionally, Pluristem is developing PLX-PAD for cardiac ischemia, PLX-BMP for Acute Radiation Exposure, Bone Marrow Transplant Failure and Chemotherapy induced Bone Marrow Aplasia, PLX-ORTHO for orthopedic indications and PLX-PAH for Pulmonary Hypertension in collaboration with United Therapeutics. Pluristem's pre-clinical animal models have demonstrated PLX cells are also potentially effective in other inflammatory and ischemic indications, including diastolic heart failure, inflammatory bowel disease, neuropathic pain and pulmonary fibrosis.
Pluristem has a strong patent portfolio, GMP certified manufacturing and research facilities as well as strategic relationships with major research institutions.
For more information visit www.pluristem.com and follow Pluristem on Twitter @Pluristem, the content of which is not part of this press release.
The Pluristem Therapeutics Inc. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=6882
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and federal securities laws. For example, we are using forward looking statements when we discuss our belief that the compassionate treatments results exceeded longevity expectations and that the unfortunate deaths of patients does not diminish these results, when we say that data from two Phase I clinical trials indicate that Pluristem's first PLX product, PLX-PAD, is safe and potentially effective for the treatment of end stage PAD or when we say that Pluristem's pre-clinical animal models have demonstrated PLX cells are also potentially effective in other inflammatory/ischemic indications. These forward-looking statements are based on the current expectations of the management of Pluristem only, and are subject to a number of factors and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements: changes in technology and market requirements; we may encounter delays or obstacles in launching our clinical trials; our technology may not be validated as we progress further and our methods may not be accepted by the scientific community; we may be unable to retain or attract key employees whose knowledge is essential to the development of our products; unforeseen scientific difficulties may develop with our process; our products may wind up being more expensive than we anticipate; results in the laboratory may not translate to equally good results in real surgical settings; our patents may not be sufficient; our products may harm recipients; changes in legislation; inability to timely develop and introduce new technologies, products and applications; loss of market share and pressure on pricing resulting from competition, which could cause the actual results or performance of Pluristem to differ materially from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by law, Pluristem undertakes no obligation to publicly release any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. For a more detailed description of the risks and uncertainties affecting Pluristem, reference is made to Pluristem's reports filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Pluristem Therapeutics Inc.
William Prather R.Ph., M.D.
Sr. VP Corporate Development
1-303-883-4954
Daya Lettvin
Director Investor & Media Relations
+972-54-674-5580
zzaatt
Thursday, 09/20/18 06:51:50 PM
Re: hopester post# 15785
Quote:
This article you [Allo] wastefully posted was not significant
I beg to differ!!
It is very important in multiple ways:
1. Any clinical work that shows safety enhances chances of approval. In fact there's an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy requirements! A drug with less than stellar efficacy has a better chance of approval if the side-effects don't kill the patient.
UM... 2 things. This was not a 'study' to show 'safety'. You might want to read before your rebut. IT was a marker expression study comparing 2 different sources of MSCs. Remember, slow down and sound it out. Next, "In fact there's an inverse relationship between safety and efficacy requirements!" UM... did your really mean to type this? Nothing shows more 'fake smarts' and a lack of serious medical acumen than a statement like this. There are examples too numerous to count where this is NOT the case. YOU Sir or Madam or Whatever the salutation for the Gender Neutral crowd would so respect, might want to look up the definition of 'FACT' that was provided to you in a previous post.
2. The results indicate clear efficacy:
The primary finding of our study was an improvement in muscle strength mirrored by an increase in muscle volume in the cell-therapy groups compared with the placebo group
UM...again, follow the chain, you are not even talking about the same study here either... The debate you are losing here was about an In-situ look at MSC's and marker expression. NO EFFICACY.
3. Clinical results corroborated by morphological findings:
Most striking was the concordance of the results gathered from the functional assessments and micro-morphological and macro-morphological studies with the immunological analyses.
Yeah, but, and its a BIG BUT, 'clinical results' in this case would be defined as a trial to assess the efficacy and safety of MSCs in Humans to treat, _________. but not this paper.
4. A great deal of new information about the MOA of the cells:
examples (long paper, much more info):
our data reveal that the effect of transplanted PLX-PAD cells is not based on differentiation but rather on trophic and immunomodulatory support of the endogenous regeneration. This finding is consistent with recent studies on tendon healing demonstrating the decisive role of early trophic factor delivery to the site of injury.
UM... Now your blurring unrelated discussions to back an argument that doesn't exist. So... irrelevant.
Remarkably, alterations of immune cell subsets displaying the immediate post-operative stress were significantly reduced by PLX-PAD therapy (followed by lots of details!)
5. Batch to batch efficacy was very consistent! That knowledge is essential to convince the FDA that the cells in each vial will have the expected effect!! In other words, Pluristem has mastered the production techniques to mass-produce the cells with no variation.
Well, not exactly. This was a paper, not a clinical study. A formal clinical study would need to be constructed in such a way as to test the specific and exact manufacturing facility that would produce the cells for treatment. It has NO convincing power for the FDA than to support a recommendation for a GMP certification."
"Pluristem has mastered the production techniques to mass-produce the cells with no variation."
- This is patently FALSE - and patents are important.... They have 'mastered' no such thing related to CD marked or expressed, engineered cells.
(lots of data...., then): This expression profile is in line with the proposed anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, cell-interaction, tissue homeostasis, and angiogenesis influencing properties of PLX-PAD. Importantly, PLX-PAD cells from different preparations or even from different donors expressed an almost identical marker profile underlying the robustness of the manufacturing process
(VERY, VERY important!!!!!!!)
"PLX-PAD cells from different preparations or even from different donors expressed an almost identical marker profile" (in a dish)
Almost identical = Almost cured = Almost = effective = Almost = Safe
Hand grenades & Horseshoes when it comes to claims.
"OK, this is based on a very quick reading of a very detailed paper! Hopester thinks (to Allo): This article you wastefully posted was not significant"
"I don't know how hopester could have come to that conclusion (maybe his charts told him, after all, that's all that really matters, right?)" Sarcasm??!!
It was probably very easy for Hopester, actually. You see it is the charts, of data and facts, in this case, that led the way to the educated response to this 'quick reading' and 'quick responding' post of your own. IMHO. ><";>
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cyto.a.23509
In situ detection of CD73+ CD90+ CD105+ lineage: Mesenchymal stromal cells in human placenta and bone marrow specimens by chipcytometry
Christine Consentius Anja Mirenska Anke Jurisch Simon Reinke Markus Scharm Ana Claudia Zenclussen Christian Hennig Hans-Dieter Volk
First published: 13 September 2018 https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.23509
Grant sponsor: EU project PACE; Grant sponsor: German Research Foundation (DFG), Grant number: SFB650
PDF
Tools Share
Abstract
Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) support endogenous regeneration and present therefore promising opportunities for in situ tissue engineering. They can be isolated and expanded from various tissues, for example, bone marrow, adipose tissue, or placenta. The minimal consensus definition criteria of ex vivo expanded MSCs requires them to be positive for CD73, CD90, and CD105 expression, while being negative for CD34, CD45, CD14, CD19, and HLA-DR. This study aimed to compare the in situ phenotype of MSCs with that of their culture-expanded progeny. We report for the first time in situ detection of cells expressing this marker combination in human placenta cryosections as well as in bone marrow aspirates using multiplex-immunohistology (Chipcytometry), a technique that allows staining of more than 100 biomarkers consecutively on the same cell. © 2018 International Society for Advancement of Cytometry
Supporting Information
Filename
Description
cytoa-23509-sup-0001-Supinfo.docxWord 2007 document , 982.5 KB
Suppl. Fig. 1: Characterization of in vitro expanded MSCs isolated from human bone marrow aspirate. Isolated MSCs are routinely characterized according to the minimal criteria of the ISCT. Their capacity to differentiate into osteogenic, adipogenic, and chondrogenic lineage and the presence of the characteristic cell surface markers after the addition of appropriate media were confirmed. [A-D] shows the representative data of human bone marrow MSCs from five different donors. (A) Chondrogenic differentiation of human MSCs was induced in pellet culture with chondrogenic media supplemented with transforming growth factor- beta 1. Pellets were stained for proteoglycans with Alcian Blue and for type II collagen by immunohistochemistry and quantitatively analyzed via the amount of proteoglycan content normalized to total protein. (B) Adipocyte differentiation was qualitatively assessed by Nile Red (NR) staining and quantified by measuring the fluorescence intensity of NR relative to the cell number [adipogenic differentiation]. (C) The matrix mineralization was visualized with Alizarin Red (AR) staining. Quantification was achieved by measuring the absorbance of AR (optical density AR) that was normalized to number of viable cells [osteogenic differentiation]. (D) CD45, CD34, CD14, CD73, CD90 and CD105 expression was assessed by flow cytometry. Representative histograms for one donor as well as mean percentage of positive cells are depicted.
Suppl. Fig. 2: Autofluorescence of a human placenta cryosection. Autofluorescence before staining for CD90 PE and after bleaching/before staining for CD105 PE. One representative staining out of three is depicted. Section M126688 derived from a normally progressing pregnancy legally interrupted in the 11th week of pregnancy.
Suppl. Fig. 3: Establishment of antibody stains on in vitro expanded BM-MSCs. Cultured human BM-MSCs were loaded onto ZellsafeTM Cells chips and stained for CD73, CD90 and CD105 (positive markers) as well as CD14, CD19, CD34, CD45 and HLA-DR (negative markers) successively.
Suppl. Fig. 4: Comparative flow cytometric analysis of MSCs in freshly isolated bone marrow (specimen 1034). A total of one million events was acquired. Cell debris, doublets as well as dead cells were excluded from analysis. A population of CD90+ dump- (CD45, CD31, CD34, CD19, CD14, HLA-DR) cells was defined and in a second step analyzed for simultaneous expression of CD73 and CD105. MSCs represented a population of 0.0143% of all living cells.
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
From <https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=143741486>
Amazon was founded on July 5, 1994 by Jeff Bezos and the site went online and began service as Amazon.com in July 1995
Frankly, I only care about the share-price, where patients are not involved. IF a company can grow my interest in my position 1K+ fold, without turning a profit, I don't hold it against them.
Disclosure: I am loooooooog AMZN (those are zero's, not O's) there should be 8, but my eyes got blurry. In in the 50's, 60's, 70's & 80's.
I know AMZN, and PSTI's leadership in No Way, could EVER be accused of being the next AMZN. IMHO. Just saying.
hopester
Sunday, 09/23/18 05:37:44 PM
I'm saying to him/you that back in '02 ( 16 years ago) the company had virtually no sales and stayed that way for a good many years. The stock flat-lined.
I showed you both the chart. Now you can show me the sales back then.
The whole point is that many companies, especially technology and bio-tech companies produce nothing but an idea for years. Then if they can deliver, you see the stock rise from the dead.
When complainers use lenghts of time to produce something as a basis for blaming everyone else for THEIR OWN POOR TIMING, its time for a reality check.
You know...This is GOOD NEWS and BAD NEWS all in 1. Thanks allo.!
First the GOOD news - This grant will allow several other sources of automation for the improved efficacy, yield and reproducibility of the manufacturing of mesenchymal stromal cells for clinical therapeutic use for competitors to PSTI!!
Now the BAD news - PSTI & Thermo Scientific receive NO benefit from this grant!! This grant will allow several other sources of automation for the improved efficacy, yield and reproducibility of the manufacturing of mesenchymal stromal cells for clinical therapeutic use for competitors to PSTI!!
FDApproved
Sunday, 09/23/18 03:10:58 PM
FDA Grant....•Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, GA), data enabled automation for the improved efficacy, yield and reproducibility of the manufacturing of mesenchymal stromal cells for clinical therapeutic use - $600,000.00
https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/FDAInBrief/ucm621180.htm
Yup, what he said! Look it up!
The BLOOMBERG JOURNAL OF MEDICE?
Gold star and 2gummy bears for you!
Maybe you could post the NEJM and JAMA articles on psti's Miracles... Or, BLOOD?
RATHER THAN THE PAID MULLET WRAPPERS LIKE THESE.
But Eich... How, oh How can that be?!?!
I thought a secret entity was in steady accumulation mode?
Too Infinity and Beyond!!! Common Sense is as rare as a psti approval!
Ok zzatt, here you go, right up your alley...
Question: If you don't agree that psti's share price is based on a 'guess' - for today, and 'the future', then use the below mathematical model to calculate today's actual 'share price' value.
It should exactly match what the market says what it was worth on Friday, right?
Show us your stuff, given your decorated background. We know you welcome 'truth' and despise 'lying'...…..
Share?
How to Calculate Stock Price
By Rosemary Peavler Updated July 29, 2018
The market price per share of stock—usually termed simply "share price"— is the dollar amount that investors are willing to pay for one share of a company's stock. It has no specific relation to the value of the company's assets, such as book value per share does, which is based on the information from a company's balance sheet.
How to Calculate Stock Price
You actually don't have to calculate the current market price per share because it's readily available. It's the figure that appears when you go online and ask to see a company's "current share price." Just enter the company's stock symbol in your search engine—for example, AAPL for Apple— along with the phrase "share price" to determine the share price online as of any given date.
Most internet pages, including online brokerage sites, show current share price, and they also allow you to find the share price on any given past date. Some of the more popular sites include Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Investopedia, and StockCharts.
How Share Price Is Arrived At
If you're hardcore and you want to do the math yourself, determining the market price per share of stock goes something like this.
Select the date for which you want to determine market price, then determine the company's net income [color=red][/color]as of that date. This information is typically found in quarterly and annual reports, but it's something else you can usually hunt up online.
Now subtract the dollar value of dividends the company has paid out. If the company's net income for that date is $1 million and the dividends paid were $200,000, you have a numerator of $800,000.
Determine the number of outstanding shares. You can use either actual shares outstanding or the average over a period of time. This is your denominator. Not all internet stock market sites show the number of outstanding shares for each company, although many do. Otherwise, you can find the number of shares outstanding in the company's 10-K report: the less glossy, more detailed, and SEC-required version of the company's annual report.
Divide the numerator by the denominator. If the denominator or outstanding shares is 50,000, this would work out to $800,000 divided by 50,000 for a value per share of stock of $16.
Market Price Per Share vs. Market Value
A related data point is the company's "market value"—the overall value that investors assign to a company on a given date. You can determine that value by multiplying the market price per share, in this case $16, by the number of shares outstanding, which is 50,000, so you're back at $800,000.
The Effect of Trading Volume
Sellers and buyers have a direct effect on stock value, so market price per share can be fluid. The more interest there is in a stock, the more liquid that stock becomes. Liquidity or lack of it can drive prices up or down in short order. In many cases, it's a matter of supply and demand. When supply is greater than demand, prices fall. When demand is greater, they rise.
The Difference Between Market Price and Book Value
Investors new to the market sometimes confuse the stock's share price with the company's book value. The book value, also known as the net asset value, is determined by adding up the company's assets and subtracting its liabilities. Both values appear on the company's balance sheet and annual report. In theory, this value is what the company would be worth if it were broken up and sold and is a closer estimation of the company's true value.
In almost all cases, the book value will be significantly less than the market price because the market price takes into account both the company's current profitability and estimates of future profitability. It reflects not just the value of the company's assets, but an estimation of the company's ability to use those assets to earn a profit.
Share prices alone very rarely reflect a company's true value.
NOTE: Please consult with a financial adviser for the most up-to-date advice and answers to any specific questions you might have. The information contained in this article is not intended as investment advice and it is not a substitute for investment advice.
So tired of your claims of efficacy and safety without head to head, double blind placebo controlled studies.
The information is interesting but it is not a clinical trial.
If it were news worthy, you wouldn't have to dig it out of the basement.
Not really, see my rebuttle.
"If you are going to invest, you have to make a guess" (assuming you mean an educated one
Isn't that what the stock 'MARKET' does every day with the share price, zat?
Waffel alert!
Everyone guessing psti is worth $1.32, today, and in the future. FACT.
So either psti's invested relations is incompetant or is irrelevant. I belive, and so does the investment community, for noe. It's irrelevant.
Omg... Did you really just tattle? You funny
We can ALL see why United Therapeutics dumped these underclassmen.
Oh yea. The 'spin' on that SNAFU was that now psti could go it alone!
Yeah... How's that working out.
2020 Folks, not a day sooner.
Dead on
The EAP has NOT enrolled a single patient since it was approved in January.
The PIII R18 study with the DOD has not started either.
Read the 10K i is common knowledge.
Allo FDApproved and EAP, can you believe the the lack of badic knowledge?!?
Then treat some patients with the EAP.
On come on, hopester, you're killing their buzz