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.
No idea but I know medical equipment prices can be wildly variable depending on distributors and contracts. Bigger customers including institutional accounts can get medical equipment and products a lot cheaper than small clinics and they may also have not have found the most cost effective vendor. To me the main flags that caused me to sell at a (big) loss was the continued delay of trial reporting. The rest is a little outside of my expertise. The overall business strategy and revenue stream also was concerning (and product pipeline and existing IP) but I digress
I hope you are right for the sake of longs still in this stock. It's a little odd that Dr. Said, and emergency medicine doctor, is doing this procedure but then again compensation for that speciality is not ideal. But I do not believe they have seen the trial data. If I had to guess I would bet that only Dr. Rajfer and the company know the clinical trial results. Many doctors won't get involved in any procedure or device without getting the clinical trial data first. But many will despite the concerns that should raise. I have done medical research for 20 years and every surgeon I worked with would never do a new procedure before seeing clinical trial data / proof it is effective and safe first. The caveat for CMTH is they are in the stem cell field there is a lot of soft science (pardon the pun) in most applications especially in regenerative medicine. Most stem cell companies are doing procedures unsupported by clinical trials or any good evidence. I think thats where CMTH falls from what I have seen over the past year and resistance to report their data. Also I wonder what conflicts of interest all of the doctors have who are doing these procedures including Dr. Rajfer. What interests do they have in the company, stock, consultant positions, members of the board, etc. There are way too many stem cell clinics currently making unsubstantiated claims.
I am not suggesting this company is a scam though. For me I can not yet assess whether or not that is the case; at least yet. I can only say from my own experience and knowing too much about medical research and clinical trials I could not justify owning stock in this company any longer. Hopefully the science actually works in their Caverstem application, clinical trial is reported soon, and things reverse with their trajectory and start scaling rapidly. Thats a big ask though
The problem is they continue to promote this procedure and doctors perform it without releasing critical information about it's actual safety and efficacy. This puts patient health at risk. If they worry about releasing the results for whatever reason including potentially mediocre clinical results they should never have done a trial. more regulation is coming soon to stem cell therapy field and it can't come soon enough. And UCLA should do the right thing he and release the results themselves of the company won't
And Dr. Said still promoting this procedure while there company refuses to show clinical trial evidence it is safe and/or works
Agree. I learned this the hard way Andrew sold at .0033. it took me too long to realize but glad I did finally. This stock is a disaster
We have no actual clinical trial data just anecdotal data. And you provide more evidence this procedure is questionable. There are usually some failures in every treatment group in every study which is why the clinical trial results are so important to see. And the fact they have not released them further suggests the results are poor. I am no longer a believer and should have sold much earlier then I did... summer 2018 would have been good for that but oh well
I think you're right. Especially about the financials and clinical trials. Glad I am out even with my loss haha
The peer review concept does seem a delaying tactic. It will never be peer reviewed if they never submit it for peer review; to a journal. And that has not happened still according to the last PR which is also hard to justify. I think the results are mixed at best and they don't want to release them immediately and use for marketing and strategic growth and to convince docs to perform this procedure. This is a simple clinical trial with two cohorts and easy to do statistical analysis on. Stem cells are fragile and results are unpredictable in many applications. This one seemed more promising than some like cardiac tissue regeneration because delivery is easier. But that does not guarantee success. Also the idea that marrow derived stem cells are better than adipose is also proving to be misguided in new research. Also I did not like that the last PR mentioned in the title "significant success" in 100 patients without describing what that actually means. I have no idea and "significant" should not be used lightly in a non-statistical description. That was also a flag for me. And yes your also right that the yearly chart could not be any more clear. These were my thoughts - maybe I am right or wrong but thats why I sold for a (sizable) loss. I should have reacted sooner to all the signs and technical analysis. I learned from this I think. Good luck to all
That's very true and it is crazy that NIH allows lack of reporting to occur. Sponsors have 12 months to report but vast majority do not meet the deadline. That said if CMTH has good data I believe they would have reported it by now. It is inexplicable to keep it from the public especially when you are trying to recruit patients to undergo an invasive medical procedure without providing them the safety and efficacy results from their own completed trial. Thats why I sold for a loss. Too much time elapsed and it does not make any sense that if this is an effective treatment they would not want to make the results public. I have done research at an academic center. We reported results within weeks of completing studies. It can take 6 months or longer to publish results but based on their last press release they have not even submitted a manuscript yet to a peer reviewed journal which is also hard to make sense of. Either UCLA or CMTH should have reported the results by now in my opinion. I hope this company proves me wrong and things reverse but I could no longer justify keeping a position in this company
I hope your optimism pays off. This company needs to stop hiding the ball on the trial results. That is step one
Friends don't let friends buy CELZ
Stem cell therapy sector probably has a higher rate of scams and bad actors. Minimal FDA regulations and many unscrupulous businesses have taken advantage. It's time they were all properly regulated and companies making false claims are shut down. Not sure if this apples to CMTH but it's looking worse every day
Thats true. Scary to think of the collective losses here. Hope we all make it back quickly. For now I will take my lumps, tax losses and be a more disciplined investor in the future I hope
Agree - absolutely nothing about this looks good (including the overall business strategy and TA). Glad I sold at .0033 even for a big loss and reshuffled my positions
You may be right. I hope the trial results are not mediocre. There are many companies that offer stem cell treatments of a variety of medical conditions that have no positive benefit to patients. I really hope this is not another in this category. The FDA needs to regulate this space a lot better. I do hope this company has an efficacious treatment but it got harder and harder to believe them with the lack of transparency. I am on the sidelines now after losing 20K but learned my lesson :)
What is a positive way to explain why they are still burying the clinical trial results almost a year later? Also questionable to market this to patients when they refuse to show them actual trial results for safety and efficacy of their own product
My problem with this stock is if the clinical trial was a success why have they not released that data even 11 months later? Where is the data? That seems ominous - to me at least.
Good point. We are closing in on the deadline
By regulation the company has 12 months to report results following completion of a clinical trial. They have 3 months remaining to hit this filing deadline. This study is not complicated though and their is no requirement they wait 12 moths before reporting results. Most BT companies try to get data out as quickly as possible either way. Unfortunately, the majority of companies do not even meet the 12 month clinicatrials,gov reporting requirement and enforcement is lacking. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4508873/
No reason to delay posting results though especially when they are already in clinics. It's not a complex trial to analyze the results and it's harder to convince patients and doctors to do a procedure without clinical proof from a well designed clinical trial.
I have no idea when they will actually report this data. Thats the reason I am no longer a shareholder. They need to prove this works through a successful and disclosed clinical trial.
It's not complicated. Honest companies release their clinical trial results. Hiding the data tells me everything I need to know
Hard pass. I lost 20K on this stock. Lesson learned and take the blame for not seeing the clear red flags. Fortunately my other stocks are faring better. But this company has become plagued by red flags and dilution. You may get lucky to swing it now with good timing but the long term trend is as obvious as the chart TA. If the clinical trial results were great they would be released by now and its obvious why they have not been disclosed. They should be released either way. The public and shareholders deserve full disclosure
If Caverstem works why 10 months later we have no public disclosure of clinical trial results? This is not some complex genomics study. The stats analysis can be completed in one day. Hard to ask patients to have a procedure without Level 1 solid evidence it is safe and works. Glad I sold off this brick.
Isn't it strange doctors are doing a procedure without Level I evidence it is efficacious and is safe? In other words before knowing the clinical trial results. This is just one of many bright red flags to me. Where is the data
Biggest question still remains - where is the data?