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.
Boy, I sure wish Rocky were here to explain all of this.
So what happens if we refuse to tender? How does the deal go forward if we refuse to sell?
As always Rocky, you are a scholar and a gentleman.
Rocky - can you provide us a summary of what ACTC still has outstanding, in terms of lawsuits, SEC investigations, etc, and what the likely outcomes are for those?
So Myopic Macular Degeneration is not the same as Myopia, yet Rabin seems to be indicating that they are treating myopia.
Is this a misreading on my part, or is he really that ignorant of these things?
I rebutted that straw-man laden partisan misinformation fest weeks ago. You can insult me all you want, the fact remains that Bush was the first president to authorize federal expenditures on HESC's, and that President Obama's policies are still in fact limited by the Dickey Wicker Amendment. The most recent ruling does not change that fact, it just states that the DWA is sufficiently vague enough that Obama's current policies can be interpreted as comporting with the DWA, not that the DWA is moot.
Dude. Every IVF embryo gets a cell removed nowadays. You need to quit pretending that it harms the embryo's overall development.
This is pure conjecture on your part. What you're sure of has nothing to do with the science. If the stem cell culture doesn't take with 1 or two cells, its the NEXT step that determines if the Embryo is destroyed.
You're misleading people. Stop it.
What is going on here with all these people coming out of the woodwork to misrepresent policy and science?
"Once you remove that cell which could be vital DNA for organ development the embryo will never develop to be normal. This is why they are destroyed. "
Absolutely 100% false. Removing the cell happens in IVF all the time, and guess what, the babies are born just fine. There's evidence to suggest that development slows temporarily as the embryo recovers, but it develops fine, and the result is perfectly normal.
http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/Embryo_Biopsy_Issue_Brief.pdf
"Two to four days after fertilization, the embryo usually consists of approximately eight cells. For PGD, one or two cells can be removed from this embryo and subjected to genetic tests. Once the results of the genetic tests are known, the embryos determined
to contain the desired genetic characteristics – generally those not carrying particular mutations associated with disease – are transferred into a woman’s uterus to start a pregnancy. Since it was first made available in the early 1990s, there have been more
than 1000 births worldwide following PGD."
This question has been answered several times. Yes, it is. As per in the Lancet publication, the embryos were destroyed after the fact, unrelated to the methodology of the trial.
Ah yes, a post purely intended to insult, that the moderators have let stand.
how unshocking.
When the facts are clearly in your corner, and your opposition is using logical fallacy and pure fantasy, not to mention constantly shifting goalposts, its easy to keep the same opinion.
I made very specific contentions. Those contentions have not been even close to refuted.
1) Clinton did not fun any ESC research
2) Bush was the first president to do so
3) Obama's reversal of Bush's policy is still restricted by the Dickey Wicker Amendment, which Obama signed
4) No new lines can be created with federal funding absent a mechanism to preserve the embryo, which currently is patented by ACTC
The degree to which you are grasping at straws, and at this point completely making things up (coupled with conflation of unrelated variables) is unbelievable. I have no idea what is motivating you to mislead the readership here, but I'm not going to sit by and let you do it.
<First of all, the embryos from fertility clinics were not created for research, and second of all, the lines derived from the stem cells, are not derived from embryos created for research>
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The text of the Dickey Wicker Amendment has an OR in it:
SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for--
(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or
(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)).
(b) For purposes of this section, the term `human embryo or embryos' includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.
< the lines themselves are not embryos, so funding research using the stem cell lines, is not technically funding the creation of embryos for research. >
No one claimed the lines are embryos
<So the guidelines do not prohibit new stem cell lines from being created through methods that destoy the embryo.>
THEY NEVER DID. At no point was the creation of new stem cell lines PROHIBITED. The 2-1 panel at no point in their opinion argues that federal funding can be used to fund research that generates new lines if the embryo is destroyed. Therefore, as I have stated several times, Dickey Wicker is STILL applicable, and STILL restrains federal funding on this matter.
You seem to be under the misconception that NIH policy is the same as law. My contention was not that ACTC's technique comports with NIH policy, my contention is, and is accurate, that it comports with the LAW, which is the Dickey Wicker Amendment.
Now, all law is subject to interpretation, but for you to pretend that the matter is settled and the interpretation has been made, is completely ridiculous. The court heard the case again, and the opinion is expected later this month or early next.
Your position keeps jumping all over the place, first 1998, now 2000 - not just 2000 mind you, but late august, only a few months before Clinton left office. I never disputed that the NIH revised its guidelines at the end of Clinton's term. That DOES NOT MEAN any federal dollars were available for research! When the US military says 'ok, we need 60 new fighter jets', they don't go and spend the money on it, they have to get budgetary approval.
So again - NO FEDERAL dollars were spent for ESC research under Clinton. The NIH's OWN WEBSITE that YOU cited illustrated that the funding began in 2002.
Your entire argument continues to rest on faulty assumptions and completely spurious implications.
1998 had *no bearing* on the spending of federal dollars for ESC research. Period.
There were ZERO dollars spent on ESC research until 2001, and nothing you're citing suggests otherwise, despite your claims to the contrary.
Bush did not invent ESC research any more than Gore created the internet. His policy, which MOST CERTAINLY had to do with Dickey Wicker, was the first time a President had directed funds towards ESC research. Dickey Wicker acted as legislative restraint on Executive policy *the same way* that it acts as legislative restraint on Obama's Executive policy.
The law, which *clearly* prohibits federal funding of research that destroys the embryo, *clearly* limits the ability of researchers to apply for federal funding, since access to the existing lines of stem cells is limited.
And I tried to keep my opinions out of this because its a matter of history and policy - I don't give two hoots about embryos. I'm staunchly pro-choice, and would have no ethical or moral compunction about even *creating* embryos for ESC research, and I think its a travesty that aborted fetuses cannot be exploited for scientific research.
But what I can't stand is partisan hackery masquerading as informed opinion.
Wow. You are really in it to misinform, aren't you? Straw men all over the place.
The injunction was over turned, the Dickey Wicker Amendment STILL STANDS. The two are not mutually exclusive.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/stemcells/index.html
All Obama did was expand the lines available for federally funded research, ONLY applicable to ones ALREADY created. I never disputed this fact.
I *never* stated that Dickey Wicker was a Bush era policy, in fact, I clearly stated it was signed by Clinton.
"However, under Clinton, they funded embryonic research because the Dickey Wicker Amendment had a narrow interpretation. Bush wrote his own policy, and relied upon Dickey-Wicker, but Dickey-Wicker doesn't prohibit embryonic research, nor does it prohibit the NIH from registering new stem cell lines that follow its policy: "
This is false - no federal dollars were EVER spent on ESC research until AFTER Clinton was out of office.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-21-1468706534_x.htm
"There were no federal funds available for the work until Bush announced on Aug. 9, 2001, that his administration would spend tax money for research on lines of cells that already were in existence."
I NEVER SAID that the NIH doesn't fund research on Stem Cells, OF COURSE it does, and AS YOU CAN SEE from YOUR OWN LINK, it DID NOT spend any money on ESC research BEFORE Bush.
Your claim to the contrary: "However, under Clinton, they funded embryonic research because the Dickey Wicker Amendment had a narrow interpretation." is a LIE. So why are you lying?
The DWA prevents any ESC Research being funded by the government if it relies on destroying the embryo.
Specifically: "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.208(a)(2) and Section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act [1](42 U.S.C. 289g(b)) (Title 42, Section 289g(b), United States Code)."
Currently, only ONE research organization has a patent on the ability to utilize ESC's without destroying the embryo, and that's ACTC.
ALL current NIH funds are in compliance with the Law, which includes the Dickey Wicker Amendment, which has been resigned by Obama.
Your understanding of the policy is pure fantasy.
It's simply absolutely 100% true.
1) This is purely conjecture on your part, and isn't based on any evidence whatsoever. ACTC was in no position to advance to human trials in 2008.
2) Embryonic Stem Cell research is STILL LIMITED by the Dickey Wicker amendment, period. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100923/full/news.2010.485.html
Just as federal funding for ESC research STARTED under Bush, it is continuing under Obama, but is STILL LIMITED by the Dickey Wicker Amendment, period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_laws_and_policy_in_the_United_States#Federal_law
"Federal funding originating from current appropriations to the Department of Health and Human Services (including the National Institutes of Health) under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, remains prohibited under the Dickey Amendment for (1) the creation of a human embryo for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero."
http://www.bedfordresearch.org/article/dickey-wicker-amendment-human-embryo-research-25912
"The Dickey-Wicker amendment to the budget of the National Institutes of Health has been renewed each year since 1996. Both men are currently active in the U.S. congress. Jay Dickey is a Congressman from Arkansas and Roger Wicker is a Senator from Mississippi. Neither President Bush's nor President Obama's Executive Order changed this Federal moratorium."
Its unfortunate that there's this full court press going on to misrepresent the facts here regarding the status of ESC research, to the point where people seem to have the need to make "guarantees" that are entirely fictitious and without evidentiary merit.
I believe I was asked for my opinion on the matter. Pointing out that hyper regulation of a market can serve to degrade profit motive is hardly 'partisan' in the least. ACTC's success is based on profit motive, is it not? Any efforts to constrain profit motive through regulating the natural supply and demand curve, price fixing regimes, etc, will have a long term deleterious effect on the market in question. This has nothing to do with partisanship, its macro econ 101
You are wrong.
What you mean is does ACTC use the single blastomere technique that preserves the embryo, and the answer to that is yes, they do. This was answered in the Lancet publication. They destroyed the embryos after the fact, but the technique itself did not destroy them.
But again, there has never been a US law prohibiting this research - what you're clearly trying to do is create an atmosphere of fear regarding a law that isn't even floating around a committee anywhere.
The president does not have the authority to 'ban' anything. I don't know how to keep explaining this to you. CONGRESS makes nlegislation. The President can only affect the management of the Executive Branch. He cannot legally invent laws that would 'ban' research.
Its in vitro, which simply refers to the isolation of the biological component of interest from its living whole.
But yes, I am correct - and this is not a board to engage in partisan cheerleading, misleading people with inaccurate information to sway their political opinion.
That list of facts is accurate, but it fails to address the fact that Obama's reversal of the GWB executive order had zero impact on the reality on the ground - it implies Geron's trial was somehow permitted by Obama's executive policy. Privately funded trials like ACTC's have *never* been 'banned', and every federal dollar spent on ESC's is still restricted by the DWA, to the already existing lines.
As to your question, I don't think either choice will have a beneficial direct impact to ACTC. I think that for-profit medicine is in ACTCs interest though, and that the current administration's hyper-regulation of the medical industry degrades profit motive in the market.
Silvr Srfr is presenting entirely incorrect and partisan misinformation.
Nothing ACTC is doing is being 'supported' by the Obama administration. There was no prohibition of Stem Cell Research under Bush, nor is there any indication that Romney will try to prohibit it.
Here are the *facts*
Federal GRANTS for ESC research was prohibited by CONGRESS, via the Dickey Wicker Amendment, signed by Clinton
Bush scooted by the restrictions in the DWA by opening up federal funds to research on a limited number of already existing ESC lines. The very first federal dollars spent on ESC research happened under Bush.
The DWA still stands under Obama, and no additional lines of federal funding have been opened.
ACTC gets ZERO federal funding, therefore these regulations are entirely a moot point when discussing ACTC's trials.
Private entities have always been free to conduct research on ESC's with their own money. That has not changed. What makes ACTC unique is that their technique bypasses the criticism of ESC research (that it destroys a human life) by preserving the viability of the embryo (thus, nothing is killed).
despite the number of shares out there, ACTC's share price could easily skyrocket on the news of a JV, non dilutive financing, share buyback (which would be the smartest investment the company could make, if they believe this cure will make it to market).
Its not 'whatever' - its very important that people understand how these clinical trials work, and what their expectation in regards to data being made public is. Speech was restricted with the first two patients for a reason - ACTC needed to ensure complete control over the unknowns. The FDA probably required some degree of discretion as well, so that the trials were not compromised by public opinion. Journals, like the Lancet, are going to be hesitant to publish findings from already publicized research. The question about the 'legality' of the blog was completely valid, and your dismissive response about 'freedom of speech' was entirely misleading.
Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with this. Freedom of Speech in the context of the First Amendment prevents the federal government (and to a lesser degree state and municipal governments) from criminalizing speech.
NDA's are NDA's, and I'm guessing that at this point ACTC has determined its in their best interest to allow patients to publicly speak out.
What does this post have to do with ACTC?
It would be great if people like her invested in the company, wouldn't it?
So what is ACTC IND filing re: Myopia going to be? Do we have any insight into that? LASIK is a multi-billion dollar a year industry, does ACTC have something better in mind?
For the viability of this company, and its pipeline, GR should be aggressively pursuing a JV to sell off 50% of the AMD/SMD treatment for 5-10 years. It would not be unreasonable to ask for 3-5 billion in return for half of the profits over 10 years. With that financing secured, an immediate, pre-RS buyback would guarantee the SP would skyrocket, ensuring stability post-RS, AND giving ACTC the ability to self-fund by re-releasing the post-RS shares into the market, slowly, once the market cap reaches a more reasonable position.
Without this clear and open declaration of confidence ACTC is putting its shareholders in a pretty tenuous position. I only own 100,000 shares, and I wish I could afford to grab up more at this price, but I'm rapidly losing confidence in GR and the board's ability to steer this ship towards success. I could easily see the stock plummet during extended and onerous FDA trials, and a buyout that really only serves to makes those multi-million share holders wealthy.
Its a very dangerous game, for retail investors. PPS is dropping into the gutter. At 80:1 we barely get to $6.40 now. If uplisting does not happen immediately, COUPLED WITH IMMEDIATE institutional investing, we could easily lose another 50%+ of value. It is a very real possibility that these institutional investors would still stay away until a real product with real revenue was on the table.
Ideally we'd want to see the FDA agree to speed through the trials, and combine the safety data from both trials into one. We'd see compassionate use granted, and even a $3 billion JV for the AMD/SMD treatment for say, 50% of the profits for 10 years (that's a pretty sweet deal, given the 35 billion dollar market), which would allow for future products to be developed.
If ACTC wanted to convince all investors of the solvency and viability of the company, they'd begin a share buyback as well. If the company began purchasing shares, and truly believed in the R/S, then it would be the smartest investment they could make.
What is 'peer-view'? Its 'peer reviewed', as in, the data was reviewed by peers, ie, other scientists. Good grief.
Having a stock so expensive that it precludes retail investors is not particularly advantageous. If ACTC can realize its potential as a 30-35 billion dollar company, we probably *will* see a split to at least a half a billion or a billion shares sometime in the future, say, 5-10 years.
any news on the TJ press conference yet? It would be pretty amazing if he could move his legs.
the way percentages work, they have to add up to 100%. Your predictions dont make any sense.
This doesn't make any sense. Of course there's enough shares to meet the demand. The demand simply isn't there. And if it was, as demand goes up, price goes up, which is what we *want*.
You're joking, right? I guarantee you the thought never crossed his mind, or his speechwriters' mind. Not even close.
This is why I think a reverse split may not be on the horizon. Impending commercial realization of this product will create a valuation in which it is in the company's best interest to take out a standard business loan, buyback shares at a deflated price, and then use those shares to self fund as needed.
Its "peer reviewed" not peer-view.
At this point there's no reason ACTC should not be valued at at least 10 billion dollars. Market fickleness is absurd. With Groupon, which is on the verge of bankruptcy with no profitable model in sight, being valued at over 12 billion. Ridic.
I am very concerned with the fact that there was no engraftment or pigmentation in the AMD patient. That spells serious trouble. The increased visual acuity in that patient may be a fluke - a reporting error. SMD needs a cure too, but AMD is the real money maker.
Again - ACTC is not conducting their own peer review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Recruiting_referees