|
Post by bigbang on Sept 14, 2014 19:17:46 GMT
After seeing the Schwartz on the Charlie Rose shoe, I was bothered about his apparent lack of enthusiasm for Ocata's cell therapy. I try to look for positives and put this down to him knowing the company had a big PR plan and he didn't want to spoil things. But enough time has past and I think one of the big dogs should address concerns at the ASM. A short 5 minute talk outlining how both companies competing in the same space and how it's good for us should eliminate concerns. Can we requests topics of conversation ahead of time? But this is business and we gave shown potentially our biggest competitor in the future our full hand. 'May the Schwartz be with you'. No chance management acknowledges Schwartz being a potential conflict-of-interest. Schwartz is first and foremost a physician, and his responsibility is to patients. ACT openly calling into question his motives would create an ethical debate. Danger zone. Management discussion of the topic with shareholders is off the table. Going forward I don't think we should expect Schwartz to be an outspoken proponent of ACT's therapy, but this doesn't mean his clinical contribution is diminished. Agree with you Tradeup. I know Schwartz owns Avalanche shares but does he have any in Ocata?
|
|
|
Post by milachka63 on Sept 15, 2014 13:46:47 GMT
Agree with you Tradeup. I know Schwartz owns Avalanche shares but does he have any in Ocata? No, he does not and has stated so at conferences in the past. In my opinion, no matter how good or how integer Dr. Schwartz is, he should no longer be our lead investigator. If I am Apple, I wouldn't make Bill Gates responsible for managing the tests of a new operating system.
|
|
|
Post by bigbang on Sept 15, 2014 15:02:15 GMT
Agree with you Tradeup. I know Schwartz owns Avalanche shares but does he have any in Ocata? No, he does not and has stated so at conferences in the past. In my opinion, no matter how good or how integer Dr. Schwartz is, he should no longer be our lead investigator. If I am Apple, I wouldn't make Bill Gates responsible for managing the tests of a new operating system. I agree with you. He is a human being after all and I am sure he would want his own company to do better than Ocata. He has more of a financial stake in Avalanche
|
|
|
Post by rickrick on Sept 16, 2014 0:05:37 GMT
Avalanche is his company and therefore will be his main focus. If it ever comes down to a competition he will (imo) pick his company over Ocata. He is only a part of Ocata's trials and has to me overly favored his own agenda when given the opportunity. I agree he is an outstanding professional, but he will always be a flawed human first (as we all are).
All we can do is hope he is never put in a situation to have to choose.
I haven't heard much discussion on his talk the other day.
|
|
|
Post by stemwinder on Sept 16, 2014 0:58:25 GMT
My take is the hand-wringing over Dr Schwartz is overdone.
Earlier in this thread we confirmed that the current Avalanche pipeline does not compete with Ocata as they are focused on stopping the development of the abnormal vessels that cause Wet AMD. It would be a major effort for them to change direction and compete with RPE. Not impossible, but not easy.
I don't think it is Schwartz job to be a cheer leader for ACT, and I doubt whether ACT expects him to be. His job is to conduct the trials for which he is a PI and participate in writing up the results in a peer reviewed paper. I am sure Schwartz will be delighted to have his name attached to a seminal paper, even if it is documenting ACT's results.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Sept 16, 2014 4:19:57 GMT
My take is the hand-wringing over Dr Schwartz is overdone. Earlier in this thread we confirmed that the current Avalanche pipeline does not compete with Ocata as they are focused on stopping the development of the abnormal vessels that cause Wet AMD. It would be a major effort for them to change direction and compete with RPE. Not impossible, but not easy. I don't think it is Schwartz job to be a cheer leader for ACT, and I doubt whether ACT expects him to be. His job is to conduct the trials for which he is a PI and participate in writing up the results in a peer reviewed paper. I am sure Schwartz will be delighted to have his name attached to a seminal paper, even if it is documenting ACT's results. I completely agree and have been saying this since day one. His involvement with Avalanche does not bother. Maybe I am being naive here, but he is a trial investigator for ACT. Nothing else. I am sure he is/has been/will continue to be involved in other clinical trials concerning AMD/SMD as well. That's just how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Sept 16, 2014 10:42:03 GMT
My take is the hand-wringing over Dr Schwartz is overdone. Earlier in this thread we confirmed that the current Avalanche pipeline does not compete with Ocata as they are focused on stopping the development of the abnormal vessels that cause Wet AMD. It would be a major effort for them to change direction and compete with RPE. Not impossible, but not easy. I don't think it is Schwartz job to be a cheer leader for ACT, and I doubt whether ACT expects him to be. His job is to conduct the trials for which he is a PI and participate in writing up the results in a peer reviewed paper. I am sure Schwartz will be delighted to have his name attached to a seminal paper, even if it is documenting ACT's results. I hear you, but... When Schwartz was named the lead investigator for SMD years ago, there's an interview with him where he explained how he led the charge within Jules Stein to get all the right people together and discuss everything that needed to be discussed in order to move the ball forward within Jules Stein to get IRB approval. Based on his comments, there was a lot of behind the scenes moves that needed to be done to get everyone at Jules Stein coordinated so that the IRB approval was secured. It was a complicated, multi-month process that took constant leadership/management. So, does the same type of organizational leadership, planning and driving need to be done for MMD? Maybe not to the same extent because of the groundwork laid with the SMD and Dry AMD trials, but I'm sure Schwartz will play an important role to drive things forward and secure IRB approval for MMD. Given his position with Avalanche, how hard is he going to be driving things forward is a legitimate question, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by rickrick on Sept 16, 2014 20:56:15 GMT
jckrdu,
If I remember correctly (?) that was one instance where we were all waiting to hear big talk about actc, instead all we got from Schwartz was the impression he and jules did it all with very little mention of actc.
|
|