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.
Looks like some folks are rallying the forces for a suit vs. Tim and Don. Good for them.
I said nothing about the accomplished Dr. Ichim—only about TIM and DON. Grifters for sure.
Tim and Don couldn’t manage a neighborhood lemonade stand.
As Big suggested, we’re not interested in the “who’s who” cast and any of their patents etc beyond the extent to which these lead, directly or indirectly, to CASH (in the form either of substantial operating revenues and/or rights sold). It’s just that simple: welcome to the life of a publicly-traded company. Visible results that drive visible income quickly in their wake are LONG overdue.
And yet still no revs, no profit, no clear business plan. That’s all investors need to know in order to make an objective assessment of the business value proposition posed by CELZ.
Before or after R/S? Not being snide: serious question. PUBLIC float is around 800M, but OS is in the multi-billions range—or so it was when we last got an update...
Welcome to the CELZ Show
+100000000
Huh? How can you compare this SS to something priced at .0002?
Many others have—and have reported here. I think it’s time to discuss the IMPACT of that reality.
How did/does Dr. G. feel about the approach? Investors deserve to know the truth about the man who pioneered CaverStem—our only product in commercialization (if you wish to call it that) to date.
It’s probably somewhere in between our two statements. For me, the big takeaway on CaverStem specifically is that now we have alienated Dr. G., a world authority and high-profile figure in the field. Not good.
You mean the business “minds” didn’t listen to the scientific minds (which represent the underlying basis for the legitimacy of the company)—and then the bottom fell out (repeatedly)? Color me shocked.
I did that for more than a year: how can I justify throwing more money at this when they have done NOTHING to SHOW DEFINITIVELY that they have a compelling business plan, can articulate that plan, and are willing to give their shareholders (whom they CLAIM to value) SPECIFIC REASONS to invest in their plan?
Been hearing that for almost 3 years now
No action. No momentum. No meaningful news. Nothing new.
Based on their track record, T + 2 years after the clinical period ENDS for publication.
Consider the results shown over 2+ years of “commercialization” of CaverStem (abysmal results) by this same company.
Apparently—up from 17MM after 1:150 R/S in February...
TDA shows OS at 333MM today
Looks like they’ve turned on the printing press—again
Buyer beware: been in “commercialization “ with CaverStem for 2 years—if you can call it that. Revenues and cash burn rate are going the opposite of ideal, imo. PPS went from .002 roughly 3 years ago to .07 roughly 2 years ago, then crashed all the way down to .0002–which prompted a 1:150 R/S, allegedly to qualify for re-listing on QB: post R/S PPS was .03 and OS was around 18M; today OS is around 300M and PPS is around .0030. Do your DD!
So you sold .0001s at .0002. Got it.
It is impossible to sell .0002s at .0002 and make money
When you SELL, you receive the BID price
No—my point is that your suggestion (at least as I read your words) that you made easy money by the mere selling .0002s and buying (more) .0001s requires that you were able to SELL for .0002+. Otherwise the math doesn’t support an increase in the value in your equity as a result of “selling .0002s.” Related: the BID hasn’t been .0002+ for a VERY long time.
When did you do that? The BID hasn’t been .0002 or above for a VERY long time...
Any idea what the basis for the lawsuit by Spencer Clarke was? Looks like they are an investment banking firm headquartered in NYC. Someone wrote that this lawsuit, that recently ended in a $600K judgment for the plaintiff against CMTH, reaches back several years—perhaps as far back as 2016. If they did bankroll the company and are trying to recover money in THAT fashion, it screams “no confidence” that this will ever recover (otherwise they’d hold shares and wait)...
My service (TDA) currently shows 67.5MM ones left
That’s about the only thing they’re transparent on—and it’s far and away the LEAST important thing to me
+1. And to think that what they have been doing for over TWO YEARS (1) is being characterized as “commercialization,” (2) was actually planned to proceed at this pace (and if it wasn’t planned as such, they owe additional explanations), and (3) has generated the paltry medical procedures, revenues, and offices seen to date.
I think the (implied) point is that we can’t even get a steady flow of revenues (not net profit) amounting to $100K per quarter—and now we appear to owe $600K based on this settlement.
In addition, for those who would assert that the use of “LLC” with CaverStem need only occur at the first mention of the entity in June 2018 (the comparative data for “Amniostem LLC” and “StemSpine LLC,” showing a VERY different pattern, notwithstanding), behold the following from the 2018 Annual Report, filed in early 2019:
"In June 2018, we formed CaverStem International, LLC, in Nevada for the purpose of licensing the CaverStem procedure internationally. This entity is 60% owned by Creative Medical Technology Holdings, Inc. and 40% owned by Dr. Alex Gershman. It has not commenced any business activities."
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Stock/celz/SecFilings?subview=secarticle&sid=3735993&guid=13335603&type=1
And for those who might say that my analysis is inaccurate based on failure to properly perceive relevant pattern usage, examine across all Q and K filings the use/mention of “LLC” with respect to Amniostem and StemSpine (and there are quite a few instances) by comparison with the mention of “CaverStem” in these very same filings.
The most recent Annual Report (filed in April 2020) mentions by name “AmnioStem LLC” and “StemSpine LLC”—though neither has been commercialized.
However, the discussion of CaverStem focuses only on the PROCEDURE, and nowhere names “CaverStem International LLC” per se. Given the release below (from June 2018, when it was announced that Dr. Gershman would lead that entity) and the fact that CaverStem is actually in the commercial stage, this strikes me as ODD:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/creative-medical-technology-holdings-forms-caverstem-international-llc-300668848.html
As the calendar turns to August, has anyone else considered that we are approaching 3/4 of a YEAR since they declared min October 2019 that they “delivered”—and still haven’t substantiated that claim by demonstrating HOW they claim to have done that? There I go again—pointing out (what should be) the obvious...
Last shareholder update 2/13/2020? Almost 6 months ago.