Would that Ilfeld study meet the NOPAIN Act requirement? It's just a Pilot Study, and the 120 participants is a significant reduction from the original 200 participants, considering they're spread across several indications.
Thumb arthritis: they already have FDA clearance for OTC arthritis treatment, everywhere in the body.
Post-amputation pain: Again, it's only a Pilot study, and Staelin is incorrect when he says "up until now there is no effective way of treating phantom limb pain" because Ilfeld has conducted several studies for phantom limb pain using different treatments, and only a couple of those were ineffective.
Does BIEL "sound confident that the Recovery RX ES will not face any significant regulatory hurdles?" Staelin sounds confident about everything, doesn't he, and hasn't he always? I mean, that's the art of biotech press releases.
Who says that Bertend's presentation at the Musculoskeletal Care Symposium was "based on all branches of the Ortho Alliance adopting use of the RecoveryRx?" Staelin doesn't say that. Berends never said that. Bertends and BIEL were both at this Symposium last year. Where are the resulting RecoveryRx sales?
Here's what Staelin actually said: "Our attendance at the show was predicated on the expectation that the use of RecoveryRx will expand through the OrthoAlliance (https://orthoalliance.com/) organization in the next few months." That's just Safe Harbor hype.
And finally, MundiPharma. I cannot believe that MundiPharma contractually obligated themselves to buying $14 million worth of a product they've never sold before. More likely, it was an AGREEMENT without legal repercussions if they didn't buy that much. Regardless, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with Sacker.
I could be wrong about MundiPharma. The BIEL "True Longs" should contribute to a lawsuit against MundiPharma. By all means. Slam Dunk. Easy Money.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
