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.
DEAD WRONG, and I don't think you're really sorry! BTW, how's your research into "consulting fees"? You need to tell us that you've corrected your risible lack of knowledge, just so you can be taken seriously, LOL!
Does "Eich" think that there's anyone on this board who doesn't know that HE thinks it's "DEAD MONEY"? It's an assertion with no analytic content! Just for the record: "Eich" is DEAD WRONG!
They're not doing "Buerger's" and "Pre-eclampsia" (maybe),and I know they're NOT doing foot and mouth disease, bubonic plauge, halitosis, and millions of other things (maybe even billions!!).
They ARE doing CLI, radiation complications (military and civilian), IC, and many more to come. Why is "Auto1" concerned about what's NOT being done? It's quite irrelevant! Does NOT matter! It's a distraction! It's a red-herring!
BTW, did you do some research on how academic scientists supplement their income, and fund their work?
It's "consulting fees"!!!!
Look into the symbiosis and synergy between biotech and academia, you'll get some minimal understanding, that will help you and the rest of us.
Need to keep your eyes on the relevant! I'll make the safe assumption that they have good reasons to emphasize this or that product over time. No reason for YOUR assumptions about what's been "shelved" or not!
It's both! Having had the pleasure of working with top notch bench chemists, it turns out that in addition to the science, some people have a real talent to make things happen right when doing complex experiments. Manufacturing process has a large element of that!
I'm now convinced that YOU have no confidence in Pluristem. I'm now pondering an appropriate investment strategy as a result.... hmmm, ... done pondering... no change!
I agree, it's a non-event. But, most quarterly reports are, so I'm not particularly shocked or disappointed. The consolation is that when we get the substantial news, it will be explosive (upward, needless to say).
Not as much as science, clinical progress (P3), academic collaborators, medical research institutions eager to use Pluristem's products, massive patent position, products that target huge patient populations.... etc.
"Leadership Matters!" - yeah, and how would you know that Pluristem lacks leadership. Their accomplishment to date is pretty impressive.
Can't imagine why I would give YOU an update on ANYTHING! BTW, checkout the progress on CLI and PLX-R18 for multiple indications.
I'm also waiting for an explanation on your claim that "revered" journals like NEJM, don't publish papers written by researchers who get "consulting fees".You actually said that! I showed you to be dead wrong. How can you claim that you know ANYTHING about biotech with that kind of risible whopper!
For all, take a look at the current issue of NEJM and look at the very first paper (or just about ANY paper in ANY scientific journal). Consulting is what researchers do!!!! ALL THE TIME. Auto1 does not know that!!!!!!
It's the nature of the beast! This is a new therapeutic paradigm, it does take time to work out the underlying science and production issues.
What they've been delivering is the clinical science, and they've been doing it well. Getting it approved and selling the stuff in next. Having a P3 in place is delivering something!
You do post a lot of very cryptic messages. To the extent I can glean any information, my sense is that the effort to decipher it a waste!
BTW, I haven't seen an explanation of why you made the false claim that authors of papers in ("revered") NEJM (New England Journal of Medicine) are NOT receiving "consulting fees". There are over 25 instances of authors getting "consulting fees" in the very first paper in the current issue. You did not know this???? LOL!
You have absolutely no clue how academic research is funded! EVERY author had MULTIPLE consulting fees. All it took is a quick look at the current NEJM, and the first paper's authors had about 25 sources of fees from BPs (and other sources too).
That's a PATTERN! LOL!
Any chance you might want to apologize for that big WHOPPER?
First you have to recognize the difference between a "pattern" and random events. Do work on that, then come back and we'll see if you've succeeded.
"We will sell no wine before its time." Daily progress, we'll get there! (BTW, what are the "several other reasons", it's quite intriguing, could we have just one, LOL)
I've been trying to follow your logic. Impossible! (my suggestion to fellow posters: if there's nothing by line 4 or 5, stop, the effort is not worth it.
Orphan status is an important designation with benefits for the company
Never say never (cause you'll be wrong). This time it's an orphan designation, it's not an Acc.Appr., it's an orphan designation, it's also not a giraffe, it's NOT an infinite number things.
But IT IS an Orphan certification and that is good !!!!!!
I assume that by "dumping" you mean selling shares. When they get the DOD contract, the share price will go up! How will this force Pluristem to "stop dumping shares"?
Ok, rather than debate about who "started it", I will look forward rather than at history and do my best to avoid unnecessary controversy.
Ok, let's stipulate that (although there seems to be just a bit of needling going on...maybe I'm wrong). In any case, you have a right to be as pessimistic as you wish, in fact, challenging the optimistic perspective is not a bad idea, forces you to revisit your investment thesis, and makes for a lively board.
We obviously have a different approach: I consider the prospect of the company based on what's going on now and what we can expect in the future. The past is not irrelevant, but it's a lot less important for me than where we are and what all the available data indicates.
I also disagree with you about the role of management, which is certainly important, but ultimately the science and success in the clinic is the decisive factor. We're getting close enough to getting definitive answers (trial results), that even incompetent management (iff they are indeed incompetent) should not be able to negate the outcome.
These are fundamentally different perspectives, but I see no reason this board can't accommodate both. I do hope that we all come out more prosperous when all this is over, and I think we will. I assume our goals with respect to the ultimate outcome are the same.
[ref to "Eich"] Actually, you have MANY other differences, all to YOUR advantage!
As far as "Allo/FDA" I have no idea what he (or anyone else) owns, what I do appreciate is:
1. He provides more DD than the rest of us put together. 2. He shares his findings 3. He's enthusiastic about PSTI's chances of success.
You might think he's unrealistically enthusiastic, but at least he's on the side of the people who need success more than anyone else, the patients. Short term predictions are risky (that's one reason I don't make any), but in the long run I do agree with him:
1. there will be a contract from US Gov. for PLX-R18 2. PLX-R18 will be used in many other conditions where reconstituting blood components is essential (radiation therapy) 3. PLX-PAD will give us a successful P3 for CLI 4. there are many other indications where Pluristem's MSCs will be applicable 5. they have the patent protection to commercialize these products exclusively etc., etc.
Of course, I could be wrong (but I think it's a good bet).
Astonishing lack of knowledge! I just spent about two minutes to find definitive contradiction of "Auto1"'s erroneous assertion! I highlighted the first few authors getting CONSULTING FEES! It's the way it works! Spend at least some time reading research papers in "NEJM, JAMA, BLOOD, ETAL." BEFORE posting false claims.
The very first paper in the current issue of New England Journal of Medicine turned up the following: (EVERY single author received "consulting fees"!!!!!)
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
Dr. Bohula reports receiving lecture fees from Servier, grant support and advisory board fees from Merck, consulting fees from Lexicon and MD Conference Express, fees for continuing medical education from Medscape, Academic CME, and Paradigm, advisory board fees from Novartis, and grant support from Amgen and AstraZeneca;
Dr. Wiviott, receiving grant support from Amgen and Sanofi Aventis, grant support and consulting fees from Arena, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca, and consulting fees from Aegerion, Allergan, Angelmed, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Clinical Research Institute, Icon Clinical, Lexicon, St. Jude Medical, and Xoma;
Dr. McGuire, receiving fees for serving on a clinical trial executive committee and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi US, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca, fees for serving on a clinical trial data monitoring committee from Janssen Research and Development and GlaxoSmithKline, fees for serving on a clinical trial executive committee and advisory board fees from Merck Sharp and Dohme, consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Metavant, fees for serving as clinical trials chair from Lexicon, fees for serving on a clinical trial executive committee from Eisai, fees for serving on a clinical trial steering committee from Esperion, and fees for serving on a clinical trial scientific advisory committee from Pfizer; Dr. Inzucchi, receiving advisory fees from Merck, Janssen, Alere, and vTv Therapeutics, fees for serving on a clinical trial steering committee and medical writing support from Boehringer Ingelheim, fees for serving on a clinical trial executive committee from AstraZeneca, fees for serving on a clinical trial steering committee from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi/Lexicon, and Daiichi Sankyo, and fees for serving as data monitoring committee member and chair from Intarcia Therapeutics; Dr. Fanola, receiving advisory board fees and travel support from Janssen; Dr. Budaj, receiving an investigator’s fee, consulting fees, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline and consulting fees and lecture fees from Bayer; Dr. Leiter, receiving grant support, advisory fees, and lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, advisory fees and lecture fees from Servier, and grant support from GlaxoSmithKline; Dr. White, receiving grant support and fees for serving as an executive committee member and national coordinator of the ACCELERATE study from Eli Lilly, grant support and fees for serving as a steering committee member and national leader of the STRENGTH trial from Omthera Pharmaceuticals, grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Pfizer New Zealand, grant support and fees for serving as a steering committee member and national leader of the dal-GenE Study from DalCor Pharmaceuticals, advisory board fees from Sirtex and Acetelion, grant support and fees for serving as a steering committee member and national country lead for the AEGIS-II study, grant support and fees for serving on a steering committee from Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, grant support and fees for serving as an executive committee member and national coordinator of ODYSSEY from Sanofi Aventis, and advisory board fees, lecture fees, and travel support from AstraZeneca; Drs. Patel, Francis, and Miao, being employed by Eisai; Dr. Bonaca, receiving grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Merck, consulting fees from Aralez, Bayer, Janssen, and Sanofi, and grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from MedImmune and Pfizer; Dr. Ruff, receiving grant support and consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo and consulting fees from Bayer, Janssen, and Portola; Dr. Keech, receiving grant support, honoraria, and advisory fees from Abbott, honoraria and advisory fees from Amgen, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Bayer, grant support and honoraria from Mylan, and grant support from Sanofi and Novartis; Dr. Smith, being previously employed by Eisai; Dr. Sabatine, receiving grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Intarcia Therapeutics, Janssen Research and Development, the Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, and Novartis, grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Poxel, Takeda, Abbott Laboratories, Critical Diagnostics, Genzyme, Gilead, and Roche Diagnostics, and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, Dyrnamix, Esperion, Alnylam, Ionis, and MyoKardia; Dr. Scirica, receiving grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Merck, grant support, paid to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, from Novartis, consulting fees from Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Covance, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Eisai, Elsevier PracticeUpdate Cardiology, GlaxoSmithKline, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and St. Jude Medical, and equity from Health at Scale. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Drs. Bohula and Wiviott and Drs. Sabatine and Scirica contributed equally to this article.
This article was published on August 26, 2018, at NEJM.org.
VERY unlikely! Auto1 has no way of assessing PSTI's "reputation" (yeah, I know, the "market" told him!).
What we do know is that outstanding institutions and specialists and thought leaders in the field (muscle regen. for example) are willing to collaborate with PSTI, and administer PSTI's products to their patients. That speaks louder in my view.
Yeah, good for BR, but why didn't he give us a heads up BEFORE (as opposed to AFTER) the fact (LOL!!!). Doesn't he want us to benefit also?? (LOL, again).