Fwiw-I don't think mngmt is limping along purely for their salaries (I've never accused them of being cons)--I think they are truly trying to save the company. The problem is that they don't see the whole picture. They are ineffective in expediting Ampakine development, otherwise they would have put the various IP on the block years ago when they had proven themselves incompetent (presumably when R&R was rumored to be engineering a sale). Mngmt has disregarded shareholders by continuing to hobble along--no if's, and's or but's. They have bludgeoned us over the years with dilutions, after R&R's downgrade with a .30c pps target. What does that say to you? I think that paints mngmt as the big bad wolf for shareholders, not R&R (given the gift of hindsight, in part). Clearly, R&R are much better negotiators than Stoll/Varney have ever shown to be. I'm not saying it wasn't an exploitative move on the part of R&R (because it was), but ultimately it was about benefiting investors, with the additional effect of getting Ampakine development into more capable hands.
Regarding the 'perpetual biotech': As long as they have something of value (I can't speak for the other companies that failed, but I guess 'value' is somewhat subjective anyway), very little or no debt, and some vulture more than willing to put private investors together to skin the company (JMP, R&R for example), than the cynical view becomes the reality. I think a piece of the lingering forever puzzle already fits snuggly here.
has a clear reason to anticipate success: ADHD
I don't know how clear it is. I believe you have debated against the generalized benefits of [LI] Ampakines (with enemem)--In other words, one compound's efficacy in one indication is not indicative of another's in the same. We also have the unknown, associated with CX-1739 being part of a different chemistry (Les Street's repertoire). Also, have long term animal studies been undertaken yet? To me, trying to duplicate the results from CX-717 four years ago, is relying on a false sense of security. This beg's the question, "Then what else?" My little nagging voice says AD. Until the company provides some color, and says, "Low Impacts most likely show a weak response in brain activity for dementia/cognitive decline," I am always going to wonder--are these guys just obsessed with ADHD?
The other issue: The FDA attitude on each indication. The relevance in terms of importance/need (i.e. risk/benefit) heavily favors dementia/AD. The safety bar for cognitive decline/dementia is likely to continue to fall (based on demographics and risk/benefit profile), while the bar for ADHD will continue to rise.
Well, with nothing likely to transpire for a while, I think I'm going to step away from the day to day commentary, and engage in something more fulfilling (there is no horse left to beat, its compost at this point). Blade, in advance....you're welcome :)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
