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.
Closed HOD with a moonshot leap. Breached the .001. Shorts covering to avoid getting rope burn if need gets released after hours?
Into this chaos enters StemSpine—brought to you by CELZ!:
https://www.addictions.com/opiate/the-role-of-pharmaceutical-companies-in-the-opioid-epidemic/
Their “displeasure” has yet to even BEGIN...
11/14ish, if memory serves correctly
I expect it is part of a strategy to prevent hostile takeover.
You don’t increase shareholder value “inn the near future” by doing any of that—so I’m not expecting it.
From the 10-Q for period ending 3/31/19:
"StemSpine has also agreed to pay royalties of 50% of sale price or ongoing payments from third parties for licenses granted under the patent to third parties."
Why would they not also have licensing fees associated with third-party providers of CaverStem?
OUTSTANDING analysis!
Right-to-Try law and CELZ. I believe this will have potentially MASSIVE impact on the StemSpine segment
of the business. Those tens of thousands (millions?) who suffer from chronic back pain due to DDD may well be able to elect this procedure AND have it paid for by insurance (and near in mind that our QUITE quiet communicators just told us to expect commercialization of StemSpine in Q4 2019–i.e. in the next 2-3 months!). Now THAT could be MASSIVE here—and would put another crimp in the style of the opioid pushers...
In the beginning, when the numbers were really small, several of us calculated (independently) that they appeared to NET $1,600 per procedure (COGS vs. REVS). However, this did NOT account for the possibility that docs paid any fees for the right to participate, or other types of royalty-based considerations. Frankly, I have been pretty furious over this ONE area where clarity is SORELY lacking. By my math, something like 50 procedures were performed during the most recent reporting quarter ended 6/30/19.
It was super fun for me watching it run to .07 in Spring 2018–kind like playing a video game. This is my first OTC experience
From your mouth (or keys) to God’s ears!
My mistake, guys.
Call me crazy, but I’m willing to give a group that took Medistem from sub-penny to over $2 a share more than a little benefit of the doubt. If anything, they have UNDERpromised/communicated. Thus, when they say things like that patience will be repaid with increased shareholder value “in the near future,” I’m more than OK with it.
Then why did you say earlier that you were relying on charts alone for your assessment regarding what to expect if it goes over .001 and .0026??
I’m thinking that ALL that will change once the trial results are published showing greater than 60% efficacy (the threshold for statistical significance).
I’ve been here, my friend! Waiting for the REAL pop for going on two years...
For the 8 bazillionth time: CaverStem does NOT require FDA approval—procedures that use the patient’s own stem cells do not fall under the regulatory purview of the FDA.
Thanks for that correction
Shorts covering before long weekend. They know that rope burn is in their VERY near future...
FALSE—you have it backwards: the REVIEWERS provide feedback to the editor, who then relays the feedback/suggested revisions to the author(s) for incorporation into a publishable
version of the paper from that journal’s perspective. What would be the point in having REVIEWERS if the editor had to provide feedback PRIOR to the reviewers? Silly.
OTCX in the thick of things yesterday, PR and pop today. Some thought last year, however anecdotally, that OTCX’ presence might indicate positive movement. For now, with a sample space of ONE instance, I will track this closely over time. Suffice it to say that I’ll be here a while
Huge BUY volume in last few hours each day lately suggests shorters are covering somewhat in the event that trial results/other jet-fuel news gets released after hours. Just a hunch.
Based on what?
Second straight day with OTCX on the ask: anticipates “action” here?
Weren’t we talking .50 or $1 last year?!
MMs positioning for next move up? Almost 5M shares traded, yet no movement up or down=MMs exchanging shares among themselves as they jockey for position?
OTCX is in first position on the Ask. Doesn’t happen too often.
Another etiology (such as endothelial dysfunction) is probable if CaverStem doesn’t “work.” There can be many physiological reasons for ED—but CaverStem appears to work effectively for those whose corpora cavernosa fail to retain blood.
Actually what better way to coordinate the timing of the trial publication announcement with the contest—and thereby “reach” a much larger target market than can actually win?
Contest anticipates 20K entrants (but only a handful of entrants will WIN anything—so what is the real potential for TRUE marketing impact, given that so few people will win and thereby be in a position to know FOR THEMSELVES the degree to which the procedure works?) and a website suggesting the likelihood (through a reasonable, in my opinion, a fortiori argument) of .025+ PPS—so the continued quiet approach to marketing/promotion MUST be purposeful and conscious: WHY??? What is the strategic angle???
So I’ve long believed—and we’re about to turn EPS to POSITIVE territory (up to -.0006 in Q ended 6/30/19, previously -.0106). Yet somehow we’re in the TRIPS and have been...?
Think social media
There is no money here, man. Not understanding how so much money can be contractually obligated to BLSP by foreign governments and financial interests—when there is ZERO indication of a pulse and nowhere farther DOWN to go...
HOD close on a day with lowish volume (and a Friday to boot). Seems like a positive sign...
Right to Try will have ZERO relevance for CaverStem: this pertains to life-threatening situations. Perhaps this will have some benefit for AmnioStem (if and when we ever see anything from that).
We’ve had so many teases (Russia, cachexia, the cardiologist they brought on board—about NONE of which we’ve heard anything subsequently) that I’ve lost track. They certainly don’t make it easy being a committed INVESTOR in this stock...
Speaking of a fortiori arguments: if the Journal of Translational Medicine published the article below based on pilot activity from more than 6 years ago, why would they be less inclined to publish what is coming down the pike NOW?
https://creativemedicaltechnology.com/successful-caverstem-pilot-study-for-treatment-of-erectile-dysfunction-using-stem-cell-therapy-published-in-peer-reviewed-literature/