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.
Yes, I finally found the document re May 30th, so you are correct. However, I can't seem to locate the original doc re the $1 price and time-line. I do remember that there was a lot of discussion of the $1.00 compliance on various boards when the Nasdaq first issued the deficiency request. And, I remember as well, it was thought there was a grace period on that after November 2016, of, I thought, 6 months as well. So, again back to May. But, regardless, the action has been taken.
In any case, bad time for a R/S. no catalysts in sight. Guess, as usual with this stock, we have to wait until the dust settles.
I'm curious as to why they did the R/S now, only because the last filing, if memory serves, gave them until May 30, 2017 to bring the price up. As the end of the trial approaches, and as top line would be closer to availability by that date in May, it might have increased to the $1 price. It certainly seemed they had time to wait. With no catalysts in immediate sight, why now?
On the whole, I think so. She mostly responds to others, or talks about music, and some retweets. She stays pretty positive considering, although I haven't looked in a couple of weeks.
April can be found on Twitter quite often. She has an active account.
Johe is selling per his divorce settlement. Each recent trade states the purpose of the trade is his divorce.
That's not necessarily true. She may have said plenty, or not. Without access to her talk, who knows if the glass is half full or half empty. However there are 2 threads over at the YMB which claim that she spoke at 2 functions yesterday. The gist being, that she claims she will be freed up to give information at ANA at the end of the month and will be addressing the information we are all waiting for at that time--I'm paraphrasing here but that's the essence. If all true and correct, I'd be a happy camper.
I don't necessarily expect anything new, but a peer journal validates the information. Once validated, it becomes more attractive to investors.
Oh I see. I thought you were referring to up listing. That's where I've seen the $3/4 scenario. Thanks for the info.
Can you link to a source for the $1? I found $3 and $4 plus other listing combos, but nothing this low. Thanks!
Why downgrade? I believe the exchange they are on has a minimum price of $3 to be listed. I think NASDAQ has $4. Looks positive to me; perhaps they are expecting some news to cause an upswing. It's also the exchange of choice for tech and biotech.
Yes, we are definitely talking about two different things.
And, I think we strayed from the original topic of AF and his influence. I believe he started the ball rolling, in pre-market the stock was up-- $4+ (?)at one point, if memory serves. The same PR, the same negatives and positives attached to the information. He added more confusion to the top-line info and it ignited what some might call positive confusion, towards the negative. Is he single-handedly responsible? No, I doubt it.
While, it is certainly possible many changed their minds about the stock and sold due to the information in the top-line, I am not so generous toward all the investors. You enjoy delving technically, checking the clinical trial site, etc. and that is the correct way to deal with a small biotech investment.
I would wager that most of the investors in this stock have invested because they did average DD and thought it was a good buy.I think they are susceptible to influence. So they follow the trend. It's going up they buy, people start selling, they sell. Some people, like yourself, investigate all the parameters and make a decision to hold or sell. I think the sell-off was a mix of factors, and I think anything that might upset the cart, such as AF, had influence. All just MHO.
In terms of the top-line, I had 2 friends look at the data; one is a physician and one is a scientist. The physician felt there was optimism based on the data but he urged caution. The scientist was over the moon, and he is now an investor in this stock. I remain positive, although with the silence, and the constant downward movement for months on end, it does take brass.
My only point was I disagreed with your position about the trial-- "Here's the thing about the trial - the patients in the trial all fit the trials criteria..."
I don't think that's true. They were using Phase 1 and 2 to find the criteria cumulatively.
I haven't bookmarked everything I've read, but if you search through SA and other sites, there is someone claiming they were in the trial and that they did not fit the criteria.
Among other things they did not have the type of ALS of the participants. He had FALS. He claims he was denied the trial because he did not fit the criteria, and was later called and asked to participate.
There is another patient who did not fit the criteria, he was in last stages of later diagnosis. They accepted him; he initally got better, but then, did not. He had few viable neurons left. He died from the disease, and now his wife is a speaker on various news events re ALS.
To me that says, the criteria was mixed and rightly so. Finding your target for the PH. 3 is key. Until there was a Ph.1, they didn't know bulbar patients would not respond. Until the Phase 2, they were unaware that grip strength was an issue.
The excerpt from the Feldman paper is just that. It isn't the entire article, simply one page. Hopefully, it will elucidate when published.
Actually according to the yet to be released JAMA opinion article by Eva Feldman&another scientist,the patients in all trials did not necessarily fit all the known criteria.
"Clinical Trials of Therapies for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: One Size Does Not Fit All" http://jamanetwork.com/collection.aspx?categoryid=5507
She suggests ALS is a disease of many sub-types and so eventually there may not be one treatment for all.
She mentions how in the trials 1&2 they tried to narrow types of participants in order to distinguish who could be helped. Someone in the last trial came out a few months back to state, for instance, that they were a last chance case and surprised they were taken to participate. This person had FALS a different strain, and particularly virulent.
She also uses a quote from the FDA which basically states, the markers for treatment in ALS are different from other trials. The importance is meeting endpoints (which they did) and...
"In response to a February 2013 hearing on drug treatment for ALS, the US FDA agreed that disease heterogeneity may affect clinical trial outcomes and that it would support methods that can identify these subgroups for a efficacy analysis. Furthermore, the US FDA indicated that it is open to alternative clinical trial end points and novel study designs that apply end points other than the more traditional survival and functional scale outcomes."
Yes, the company totally blew the PR. But I disagree re AF he was mentioning slamming CUR for months on Twitter feed. He mentioned he was waiting to put together a hit piece, and made disparaging remarks re the co and the science. The ill timed, poorly written article gave him the fuel.
BTW, Dr Feldman has a new article on JAMA set for release. Online only for now , 1st page free. Probably out in next issue. Even on the 1st page it addresses that there were varied patients in trials. Meaning, purposely not patients that fit into criteria. They were testing the waters to hone specificity. So, non-responders.
The entire sector is down. IBB is down almost 12 points.
CHM- Yes, each company has its own reasons. And those reasons can be healthy. But the famous once burned (or in this case 2x) twice shy for me.
CHM-Don't think SEEL said anything about the 10x reverse. I said I didn't like it. While a reverse split has helped some companies, it can hurt others. I personally don't like them, because I have gone through them, on one I went from 5000 shares to 50, and many months later, the stock was constantly at the same upped price or down.
But mainly its a ledger accounting trick, the company isn't any more valuable. It's same value is being distributed over fewer shares. It can cause uninformed investors to suddenly see this major doubling or more of a stock as an uptick in value or rep to a stock, and if unaware of the split as the reason, put more optimism into the price. Just my pet peeve.
Seel-Yes, me too. It's nice to parse this stuff over. And everything you say about BCLI is right on, adding in that 10x reverse split as well. I have no idea why this stock is being so touted. So indeed, for we CUR hopefuls, we just won't know until we get the full results. Hopefully soon and hopefully good. Have a great weekend as well!
I agree there is a lot of grey area. And your/everyone's concerns are legitimate.
But it does seem to me that this was a poorly written, i.e. confusing, PR. it also seems to me that the market is putting undue emphasis and negativity, getting a lot of traction over, again, a poorly written PR. It gives confusing information. I don't profess to knowing what any of it means, until the company releases, and explains, full data.
What I do know, based on a friend with ALS, is that any surgery, including BiPap which is a necessity, further degrades the condition. So, surgery might be a strong negative.
However, that being said, JNap stated in his remarks re CUR, that his idea of acceptable deviation in decline based on the ALFERS is about, 1.25 Pct pts. and over 9 mos the decline was worse for Cur' s therapy.
Yesterday, he spoke with the CEO of BCLI-and JNap seems content now to accept BCLI. Interestingly, the CEO stated the decline pct. in the worst of their patients was 2.6 to 2.7 pts. per month over 3 mos. So, if you extrapolate and do the math based on 9 mos. they are way above that 1.25 threshold, and I'd have to check the numbers, possibly worse numbers then CUR. And BCLI, is not an invasive surgery.
I'm not a big fan of BCLI because if people think CUR's data looks suspicious, for me it beats the pants off what BCLI has shown as yet. But, mainly, I'm not a big fan of their stem cells as I believe they are bone marrow sourced...? They would have to show that these cells will not migrate elsewhere and will only nourish where they are placed. Years ago, there were animal studies where bone marrow was tried, the cells did not stay where they were placed. Tumors and growths developed. AGAIN, years ago, in animal studies. Perhaps this company has figured out a way to stabilize. Must have or they wouldn't be doing trials.
But they'd need more data and much longer time frames to satisfy me. Plus I know they were under a dollar not too long ago, and many timed their price upward by a reverse split. So, I was afraid to invest until the dust settled. I was on a reverse split with NBS and not a happy camper.
All that said, kudos to whomever helps ALS patients.
Yes, all true. But I have to believe there is an explanation for the nons that clarifies all the concerns and speculations. We on the outside just haven't been given it yet.
If there were serious safety concerns, the trial would not have met its safety endpoints, which it did. And the FDA would have stopped the trial, which it didn't. Plus, they certainly wouldn't be continuing the trial with FDA consent.
For me, that's just common sense. Factoring all that in, I think these so-called analysts of course, have their vested interests. But, they know better.
Yes. Have read lots of this info, but excellent repost and appreciate your thoughts. What annoys me, is the point of a phase 2 Safety trial, often phase 2 in general, is just that, safety, and also to further refine the profile. Every phase 2 has people who respond and people who do not. Why this one was blown out of proportion is squarely based on profit. The spin for profit, has obliterated the fact that the data so far is positive. Read a blog post recently where Larry Smith said that had it not been for greed, we'd likely be celebrating the first treatment to have halted progression in ALS for 9 months and more (3 years for some Ph. 1patients). Thanks again.
Welcome! Good luck. Hard keeping the faith under these conditions.
Actually they had 15 patients of varying forms and conditions of ALS. On another blog it was said, if true, they had patients with FALS. A particularly virulent ALS. They tested, it seems, patients they knew were responders in Phase 1, with a diverse group to see who the right candidates might be. In the group of 7 responders, it looks to me, that 100% of those with the "perfect conditions" for the treatment benefitted. The 47% is the number of the percentage of total participants. The trial was mainly for safety. That fact that there was benefit, is amazing. There are FDA approved cancer drugs for terminal patients that only ever showed 30+ percent efficacy. Anyway, just my 5 cents worth.
I watched for a bit. It flew around between $3.60 to 4.60 ish.