Replies to post #14281 on RespireRx Pharmaceuticals Inc (fka RSPI)

[gfp927z]

Money4, Tran isn't required to own any direct shares yet since he's a new hire (has a 3 year window to buy), plus he just received a huge truckload of super low priced options. Lucky timing on his part, unlike Varney who got stuck with his truckload at much higher prices.

Concerning AD PET, Stoll said results at end of Q2-08. There's a 2nd CX-717 AD oriented trial planned also (functional MRI or another scanning type technology), scheduled to start in Q1-08.

RD - Scheduled to start in January with results approx end of March/early April. Trial to be run in Germany. There's also a 2nd RD trial planned, to start in Q2-08 with results in Q3-08.

CX-701 - The IND filing for Phase 1 in Q4-07. Trial will be in Europe. Could be ready for Phase 2 in H2-08, with potential targets AD, EDS, RD, and Stoll also mentioned possibly another try at ADHD.

Concerning a formal letter from FDA on the CX-717/ADHD IND denial, we haven't heard anything officially though perhaps Stoll will discuss it in the presentation on Wednesday. I'll repost Stoll's email response to Ombow from a couple weeks ago.

[gfp927z]

Money4, Here's a repost of Dr. Stoll's reply to Ombow's email question (originally posted Nov 23) -

>>> Hi Dr. Stoll,
There is quite a bit of confusion amongst shareholders concerning the following issues, which I hope you will clear up:

Are you still expecting a written response from the FDA detailing their reasons for rejecting the IND for CX717 for the treatment of ADHD? Apparently, according to the ombudsman at the FDA, they are no longer required to send you a letter because you inactivated the application.

Secondly, by inactivating the application instead of withdrawing it, did you leave the door open for further communications/negotiations with Psychiatry concerning the IND? Is there a difference between inactivating and withdrawing the application?

Thirdly, do you see any chance that Psychiatry might reverse their decision based on consultations between the FDA and Cortex and the consultants you hired to help you with the IND? Do you expect to have any future conversations with Psychiatry concerning the IND? Did you have any conversations with Psychiatry before or after the rejection of the IND? Is the tox issue with CX717 of such a nature that Psychiatry could not be persuaded to change their minds? Why then did Neurology allow you to proceed with AD trials?

Thank you very much, John Mackenzie
__________________________________________________________
His reply:

John, First, suggest you and other shareholders listen in on the presentation at the Bank of Montreal meeting in NYC on December 5, 2007 (we are on at 9 AM EST). However, I have already answered your question regarding the Psychiatric Division decision on CX717 for ADHD. While we will pursue avenues to determine if we can get a meeting with experts to discuss CX717 with that division, we are moving forward with the development of CX717 in acute respiratory depression. We do not believe that there is a high likelihood of any reversal of the Psychiatry Division decision for this compound. We obviously do not agree with the decision, but I would not count on having the decision reversed. We have plenty of other irons in the fire, and while we will continue to pursue a meeting with Psychiatry, in no way do we want our shareholders hanging on to that issue as an opportunity. Respiratory depression is very real and has a very strong mechanistic relationship among various species and we believe will have great likelihood of succeeding in humans as well. Also, we have potential back-up candidates which we will be pushing forward in ADHD because we already know that we can get a response in patients from our CX717 experience. Our objective is to develop a back-up which can succeed in ADHD. Also, we will continue to pursue Alzheimer’s disease which is also a promising area of therapy. We do not think that we will have to worry about our stock price being at this very low level later next year because we have several opportunities to show good progress with the AMPAKINE® technology and believe we can therefore improve our stock price. Roger <<<

[myostrain]

5. Tran has not bought any shares yet. He does not need to purchase 30k shares anytime soon since he has only joined COR recently. His options start at .66

8. Not to anyone's knowledge and not is any significant likeliehood.

3. Not to any noticeable degree, not worth it to speculate on that one at this time

2. RD IND, pushing ahead in europe, suspect IND submission soon after any good information percolates, optimally 1st 2 months of 08.

ps, this board is full of COR speculators, investors, faithful in the promise of ampakines. Irrational exuberance, deniro and the FAN.
Good investing, investing for the future and managing risks does not a sizeable COR holding make.
What sound data is there that a person can have in a biotech to make it a reasonable large investment for a family, very limited income streams, all future earnings are possible earnings based on research and testing of biologic-pharmacologic hypotheses in addition to competitiveness and demand if a product makes it to market.

I can state with certainty that if COR ever makes it to 5+share, the insiders will own many more shares.

If you took a lesser salary compared to your peers but had substantial options to offset the difference, it would be prudent no matter the faith in the compound to wait until it is worthwhile to use the options.
Tran has 750,000 in options for 0.66, why should he significantly reduce his current living/entertainment money when he can wait for a certain time frame and possibly make millions for those options.
As much as some posters talk about the negativity of the insider holdings, why would you buy anything but the minimum shares when you have options and significant optimism. Would you reduce your spending ability for vacations, golf, vegas when you feel your options will be worth a significant amount in the future.

Here is a different view, having a majority of insiders holding near the minimum # of shares means high likeliehod that those shareholders do not feel the options will be underwater and they have no need to purchase large amounts at these low prices to try to make up any loss of income from not utilizing their options.
If Stoll mustered a buy of 500k shares currently or other significant insiders bought very sizeable amounts, they would be gambling and stating 1. we do not think our options will ever be profitable but can make some profit from the current SP 2. we are open to being blindsided by an unforeseen event, lack of rigor and procedure in testing or undesired trial/FDA information