|
Post by jckrdu on Nov 23, 2014 14:42:50 GMT
Gimmee a break. There are all sorts of unanswered questions on whether or not MA09 has licensure issues. Absolutely nothing has been put to rest on that front. You're posting as if there's no potential issue at all (wrong... as a lengthy, costly, complicated and risk filled bridging study may in fact be required), you dismiss anything that doesn't mesh with your preconcieved ideas of what is (close-minded) and then go into a condescending attack mode in your posts by implying that Tradeup has an agenda (where's Agendaman?). If you read the thread from top to bottom, you'll see that Tradeup acknowledged he could have worded things better in one of his early posts on this thread, and didn't start get flippant with some others until after he was attacked and accused of having and agenda. But yeah, glad you're here to keep me, Tradeup and the Eigen's in a straightline. Im not dismissing anything and agree there are unknowns about the cell line ultimately used. That is hopefully where everyone is at now... tradeup certainly was not before the dialogue began. "Ocata WILL NOT be commercializing MA09" Why dont you go back to the annual shareholder thread and read how the discussion started? Tradeup didnt know the difference between xeno-free and cGMP, but took the liberty to tell us all MA09 is a dead end. My response was hardly flippant and after he continued to say the same thing i asked him on what grounds he thought that. Thats a real discussion. And worthwhile to have. Evidently you agree since you found the thread very useful. Dont read the entire discussion we have then at the end of it all come on and lecture me for my attitude. HeyNow - I hear you. I saw Tradeup acknowledge that he could have worded some of his posts better, and thought that would have helped reset things. When he made a definitive statement about MA09 not being the line that would be commercilized, I took it as him expressing his opinion. I hear you and understand your points. Why don't we move on.
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Nov 23, 2014 14:43:13 GMT
Gimmee a break. There are all sorts of unanswered questions on whether or not MA09 has licensure issues. Absolutely nothing has been put to rest on that front. You're posting as if there's no potential issue at all (wrong... as a lengthy, costly, complicated and risk filled bridging study may in fact be required), you dismiss anything that doesn't mesh with your preconcieved ideas of what is (close-minded) and then go into a condescending attack mode in your posts by implying that Tradeup has an agenda (where's Agendaman?). If you read the thread from top to bottom, you'll see that Tradeup acknowledged he could have worded things better in one of his early posts on this thread, and didn't start get flippant with some others until after he was attacked and accused of having and agenda. But yeah, glad you're here to keep me, Tradeup and the Eigen's in a straightline. Im not dismissing anything and agree there are unknowns about the cell line ultimately used. That is hopefully where everyone is at now... tradeup certainly was not before the dialogue began. "Ocata WILL NOT be commercializing MA09" Why dont you go back to the annual shareholder thread and read how the discussion started? Tradeup didnt know the difference between xeno-free and cGMP, but took the liberty to tell us all MA09 is a dead end. My response was hardly flippant and after he continued to say the same thing i asked him on what grounds he thought that. Thats a real discussion. And worthwhile to have. Evidently you agree since you found the thread very useful. Dont read the entire discussion we have then at the end of it all come on and lecture me for my attitude. HeyNow - I hear you. I saw Tradeup acknowledge that he could have worded some of his posts better, and thought that would have helped reset things. When he made a definitive statement about MA09 not being the line that would be commercilized, I took it as him expressing his opinion. I hear you and understand your points. Why don't we move on.
|
|
|
Post by Keybridge - Cult Member 003 on Nov 23, 2014 14:44:26 GMT
Jck,
Presumably, the RPE program has the same licensure requirements for SMD as for AMD. The most likely explanation for the order of the trials is that with the possibility of achieving Orphan Status for SMD and a quicker path to a JV and a revenue stream, that the company would decide to first focus its resources on the SMD trials.
If you can make a case that the licensure requirements for SMD are more lax, that would interesting to read.
I do believe bridging to the NED lines makes a lot of sense, but not because it's mandatory. And as with any debate, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim - and that proof has been very week, as Heynow and several others have pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Nov 23, 2014 14:57:04 GMT
Jck, Presumably, the RPE program has the same licensure requirements for SMD as for AMD. The most likely explanation for the order of the trials is that with the possibility of achieving Orphan Status for SMD and a quicker path to a JV and a revenue stream, that the company would decide to first focus its resources on the SMD trials. If you can make a case that the licensure requirements for SMD are more lax, that would interesting to read. I do believe bridging to the NED lines makes a lot of sense, but not because it's mandatory. And as with any debate, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim - and that proof has been very week, as Heynow and several others have pointed out. I hear you Key, good points. I'll just say I'll be disappointed if costs/resources are driving the delay to start the Phase 2 Dry AMD trial. After a 3-4 year Phase 1 trial, OCAT needs to get moving. STEM is starting Phase 2 Dry AMD injections in 1st Qtr 2015. First to market does mean something, even if STEMs solution isn't as good as OCAT's. And of course no "proof" was presented that OCAT is moving to an NED line... just some good information that IMO supports the view that a move to NED is in the works.
|
|
|
Post by Keybridge - Cult Member 003 on Nov 23, 2014 15:29:03 GMT
Jck, Presumably, the RPE program has the same licensure requirements for SMD as for AMD. The most likely explanation for the order of the trials is that with the possibility of achieving Orphan Status for SMD and a quicker path to a JV and a revenue stream, that the company would decide to first focus its resources on the SMD trials. If you can make a case that the licensure requirements for SMD are more lax, that would interesting to read. I do believe bridging to the NED lines makes a lot of sense, but not because it's mandatory. And as with any debate, the burden of proof is with the person making the claim - and that proof has been very week, as Heynow and several others have pointed out. I hear you Key, good points. I'll just say I'll be disappointed if costs/resources are driving the delay to start the Phase 2 Dry AMD trial. After a 3-4 year Phase 1 trial, OCAT needs to get moving. STEM is starting Phase 2 Dry AMD injections in 1st Qtr 2015. First to market does mean something, even if STEMs solution isn't as good as OCAT's. And of course no "proof" was presented that OCAT is moving to an NED line... just some good information that IMO supports the view that a move to NED is in the works. At least creating a NED line would validate the technology, which I'm sure Lanza would like to see. There are also sound business reasons, and it makes for a better story to promote the treatment as being derived from non-destructive source. But it did appear (hearing it first hand) that this was an issue that Wotton had zero concern about - regardless of how everyone wants to parse his words.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 23, 2014 15:31:53 GMT
Jckrdu- No disrespect for you, but you have to acknowledge that Bullard, Tradeup, Jham and their like have a negative tone to their posts. You can spin it any way you'd like, but it is undeniable. It's like O'Bama saying he's not a socialist, but his policies and his actions tell you exactly what he is. If it quacks, talks and walks like a duck, then it probably is. That's fine with me because everyone has a different viewpoint, but don't deny what is obvious, because if one doesn't, it makes them lose credibility. icellman, Of course my tone is sometimes negative about Ocata, because I think there are some things to be negative about regarding this company at the moment. My "tone" reflects my sentiment. Why would I post something positive if that is not what I felt ? That is not to say I don't post positive things about Ocata, because i do. But as someone who potentially wants to invest in this stock, I want to have clarity on some issues before I consider entering again. I don't see it as all rainbows and unicorns as others do and I am allowed to express my views the way I want. And just because I do so doesn't mean there is some crazy agenda, it just means that I see things differently. You have to admit, you have a positive tone to your posts regarding this company. You can spin it any way you'd like, but it is undeniable. This, in the face of some pretty obvious issues that lie ahead. It is also really obvious that you are so married to this stock that you can't even consider looking at a contrarian view. Don't deny the obvious , because if you do, you lose credibility. P.S. Did you read the Bioheart thread regarding your namesake?
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 15:37:59 GMT
"And I’ll go further that this talk scares the crap out of some" That's the idea. You really think he's posting all this stuff for educational purposes or to help out investors? IMO of course Ridda- Posts like this steer the topic away from productive conversation. If my intent was to scare people, which it is not, would I have waited until market close on a Friday to post this thread? Think about it. And certainly I could have also chosen a more sensational headline. Is the information really that scary? It is a fact-based objective post and you have a problem with it because it challenges your beliefs. Instead of pointing out where you disagree you resort to conspiracy theory. Jckrdu- No disrespect for you, but you have to acknowledge that Bullard, Tradeup, Jham and their like have a negative tone to their posts. You can spin it any way you'd like, but it is undeniable. It's like O'Bama saying he's not a socialist, but his policies and his actions tell you exactly what he is. If it quacks, talks and walks like a duck, then it probably is. That's fine with me because everyone has a different viewpoint, but don't deny what is obvious, because if one doesn't, it makes them lose credibility. Icellman- I'm trying to understand your logic. Why don't we also go after every poster who has a "pumpy tone" to their posts? Wouldn't that be fair? So it's okay if people pump the stock because you own shares and it benefits you? There is actually a place you can pay money to read pumpy one-sided posts all day long and it's called iCell. It's like group therapy for underwater longs. You should check it out. I'm sure you meant to say: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" ... but that is okay. Did I fit your definition of a duck when I started this positive thread a few days ago?
|
|
|
Post by CM kipper007 on Nov 23, 2014 15:57:37 GMT
Jckdru, I think the delay may be intentional to some degree. News now on the OTC just isn't holding the share price.
Getting on the nasdaq may or may not change that, but I'd like to be able to tell the big money they've started when investing restrictions are removed.
Some people have said they think the company isn't doing anything right now, but I'm hoping it's quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 16:28:06 GMT
I would also guess there are readers that appreciate his posts, but i know there are readers that appreciate mine. I am only flippant with those who have shown a penchant for saying things like "im making huge profits and youre all losing money - hows that working out for you?" and otherwise disparaging comments for no good reason. I dont care what my tone is in response, especially when hilarity ("ma09 is not cgmp compliant") is written. If you and hammer want that type of misinformation to persist unopposed, OK. Otherwise ill prob just keep chimin in when i feel compelled and expect a prompt disappointed reply from you both, mixed in with a quick hit and run from one of eigenman's multiple personas. Its all good fun... HeyNow- You have really been harping on this one. If you recall, I was quick to thank you for clarification. Since then, I have also tried to clarify what I meant and put it into the context and discussion of licensure. Being truly cGMP compliant through every step of the process seems to be a critical component to commercialization. Rabin agrees. Experts on the topic claim that a cell therapy product must use GMP practices throughout the product’s life cycle (including cGTP donor suitability criteria) and in the case of MA09, a GMP IVF laboratory. IVF procedures during the period MA09 was derived included animal and undefined components for culturing and freezing embryos. The below 2012 paper supports this: Derivation of Xeno-Free and GMP-Grade Human Embryonic Stem Cells – Platforms for Future Clinical ApplicationsIn order to utilize stem cells for cell therapy, they preferably should be developed under strict cleanroom conditions, utilizing GMP-grade reagents and compulsory documentation [5]. So far, only a single group [24] fully complied with these requirements and derived hESC lines under GMP conditions; however, animal products were used in the feeder culture medium as well as the hESC culture system.Here we report for the first time the derivation of clinical-grade hESC lines developed in an animal-free and GMP-compliant culture system under cleanroom conditions. Donor eligibility was carefully screened, in adherence to regulatory guidelines. All aspects of donor tissue and embryo handling, hESC derivation, culturing, cryopreservation, banking and characterization, were strictly monitored for quality practices, in line with their future use in transplantation therapy. The data, protocols and documentation presented here may serve as a platform for the development of additional clinical-grade hESCs.24. Crook JM, Peura TT, Kravets L, Bosman AG, Buzzard JJ, et al. (2007) The Generation of Six Clinical-Grade Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines. Cell Stem Cell 1: 490–494.
|
|
|
Post by ridda on Nov 23, 2014 16:45:31 GMT
Maybe I could have worded it better. I'm glad you thought this was a productive conversation considering we're right where we started, which is an unclear view on wether or not Ocata will or can utilize the MA09 line for commercialization. But you keep throwing that doubt out there, whether you know what your talking about or not,until Ocata completes the capital raise or the stock has been beaten down to your liking. I'm sure you'll do your part in the process. I want to know the potential pitfalls just as much as anyone else is but going on some sort of witch hunt utilizing passages and tweets from other competing groups is hardly the clarity everyone is looking.
|
|
agendaman
New Member
Wherever Agenda Lurks, AgendaMan will Uncover it!
Posts: 10
|
Post by agendaman on Nov 23, 2014 16:46:50 GMT
I would also guess there are readers that appreciate his posts, but i know there are readers that appreciate mine. I am only flippant with those who have shown a penchant for saying things like "im making huge profits and youre all losing money - hows that working out for you?" and otherwise disparaging comments for no good reason. I dont care what my tone is in response, especially when hilarity ("ma09 is not cgmp compliant") is written. If you and hammer want that type of misinformation to persist unopposed, OK. Otherwise ill prob just keep chimin in when i feel compelled and expect a prompt disappointed reply from you both, mixed in with a quick hit and run from one of eigenman's multiple personas. Its all good fun... Gimmee a break. There are all sorts of unanswered questions on whether or not MA09 has licensure issues. Absolutely nothing has been put to rest on that front. You're posting as if there's no potential issue at all (wrong... as a lengthy, costly, complicated and risk filled bridging study may in fact be required), you dismiss anything that doesn't mesh with your preconcieved ideas of what is (close-minded) and then go into a condescending attack mode in your posts by implying that Tradeup has an agenda (where's Agendaman?). If you read the thread from top to bottom, you'll see that Tradeup acknowledged he could have worded things better in one of his early posts on this thread, and didn't start get flippant with some others until after he was attacked and accused of having and agenda. But yeah, glad you're here to keep me, Tradeup and the Eigen's in a straightline. **clears throat** Sorry citizen. AgendaMan had an agenda with Ignoble's wife Dr. EggiGold last night. Had to spend some extra time in the fortress of agendas to clear his head.
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Nov 23, 2014 16:53:35 GMT
I would also guess there are readers that appreciate his posts, but i know there are readers that appreciate mine. I am only flippant with those who have shown a penchant for saying things like "im making huge profits and youre all losing money - hows that working out for you?" and otherwise disparaging comments for no good reason. I dont care what my tone is in response, especially when hilarity ("ma09 is not cgmp compliant") is written. If you and hammer want that type of misinformation to persist unopposed, OK. Otherwise ill prob just keep chimin in when i feel compelled and expect a prompt disappointed reply from you both, mixed in with a quick hit and run from one of eigenman's multiple personas. Its all good fun... HeyNow- You have really been harping on this one. If you recall, I was quick to thank you for clarification after I originally suggested MA09 was not cGMP compliant -- which as a stand-alone comment is incorrect. Since then, I have also tried to clarify what I meant and put it into the context and discussion of licensure. Being truly cGMP compliant through every step of the process seems to be a critical component to commercialization. Rabin agrees. Experts on the topic claim that a cell therapy product must use GMP practices throughout the product’s life cycle (including cGTP donor suitability criteria) and in the case of MA09, a GMP IVF laboratory. IVF procedures during the period MA09 was derived included animal and undefined components for culturing and freezing embryos. The below 2012 paper supports this: Derivation of Xeno-Free and GMP-Grade Human Embryonic Stem Cells – Platforms for Future Clinical ApplicationsIn order to utilize stem cells for cell therapy, they preferably should be developed under strict cleanroom conditions, utilizing GMP-grade reagents and compulsory documentation [5]. So far, only a single group [24] fully complied with these requirements and derived hESC lines under GMP conditions; however, animal products were used in the feeder culture medium as well as the hESC culture system.Here we report for the first time the derivation of clinical-grade hESC lines developed in an animal-free and GMP-compliant culture system under cleanroom conditions. Donor eligibility was carefully screened, in adherence to regulatory guidelines. All aspects of donor tissue and embryo handling, hESC derivation, culturing, cryopreservation, banking and characterization, were strictly monitored for quality practices, in line with their future use in transplantation therapy. The data, protocols and documentation presented here may serve as a platform for the development of additional clinical-grade hESCs.24. Crook JM, Peura TT, Kravets L, Bosman AG, Buzzard JJ, et al. (2007) The Generation of Six Clinical-Grade Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines. Cell Stem Cell 1: 490–494. Every source you provide says something like, cGMP treatment for full product history from the embryo stage at the IVF clinic is "preferrable", or, makes necessary safety testing or adaptation to cGMP compliance before human use, or, in the case of the quotes from the academics about some early cell lines, that the cell lines may need specific exemption or consideration from the FDA before commercialization. Nothing says MA09 or any other cell line is precluded from marketing approval. Not even close. And what do you expect experts to say... "ocata should expect a clear, unencumbered path to market"?. No. Of course they would say there are important details to work out. No hesc therapy is in market. There is no historical basis for what can or will be commercialized. West doesnt know, Mason doesnt know, you and i dont know. Any quotes you find reflect that uncertainty. Switching to NED7 doesnt circumvent any of it. All cell lines are going to be under the same scrutiny from the FDA. We know ocata converted the cell bank to full cGTP/cGMP compliance. They said in the 2006 nature paper when MA09 was derived that They were adapting the handling to be GMP, and in 2009 said it was done - fully cGTP/cGMP. One last point. The concern about prion testing was brought up at that meeting as a concern for cell lines derived outside the US, by a pfizer researcher speaking about their own personal experiences and difficulties they expect to market their lines in the US. They were not talking about MA09, clearly. If anything, the prion jabber is a competitive advantage for ocata since it is a concern for Pfizer and their non-US derived hesc lines. And tradeup - do you really want to use Rabins comments to support your arguement?.... really?
|
|
|
Post by i(n) sight on Nov 23, 2014 17:15:00 GMT
"And I’ll go further that this talk scares the crap out of some" That's the idea. You really think he's posting all this stuff for educational purposes or to help out investors? IMO of course Ridda- Posts like this steer the topic away from productive conversation. If my intent was to scare people, which it is not, would I have waited until market close on a Friday to post this thread? Think about it. And certainly I could have also chosen a more sensational headline. Is the information really that scary? It is a fact-based objective post and you have a problem with it because it challenges your beliefs. Instead of pointing out where you disagree you resort to conspiracy theory. Jckrdu- No disrespect for you, but you have to acknowledge that Bullard, Tradeup, Jham and their like have a negative tone to their posts. You can spin it any way you'd like, but it is undeniable. It's like O'Bama saying he's not a socialist, but his policies and his actions tell you exactly what he is. If it quacks, talks and walks like a duck, then it probably is. That's fine with me because everyone has a different viewpoint, but don't deny what is obvious, because if one doesn't, it makes them lose credibility. Icellman- I'm trying to understand your logic. Why don't we also go after every poster who has a "pumpy tone" to their posts? Wouldn't that be fair? So it's okay if people pump the stock because you own shares and it benefits you? There is actually a place you can pay money to read pumpy one-sided posts all day long and it's called iCell. It's like group therapy for underwater longs. You should check it out. I'm sure you meant to say: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" ... but that is okay. Did I fit your definition of a duck when I started this positive thread a few days ago? I made this comment: "And I’ll go further that this talk scares the crap out of some" The issue is not that it challenges beliefs for all of us, for some surely. Some will look at it and some bury their head in the sand. The issue is the doubt you create as you don't conclude with what the end results may be for OCAT. Again, as I stated before (and I await your response), if I missed it, my apology. Surely you are aware that there are many people reading these posts that never engage in conversation on the forum and are not as knowledgable or savvy. So again, what is your bottom line for the lay investor because I don't see where you have come to a conclusion? Specifically: Is any line being discussed usable for purposes of trials and nothing more in your estimation? What are the possible negative sequelae for OCAT from your point of view in terms of the line being a source of revenue? These are the key things that investors want to know. Lastly, your correction of the poster about the duck is an "ad hominem": attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain. This does not discredit his post but does detract from you in what are otherwise interesting and detailed posts worth reading, whether correct or not, palatable or not.
|
|
|
Post by ridda on Nov 23, 2014 17:50:52 GMT
The only difference between what Tradeup is doing and what Bullard does on SA is the platform in which it is presented. I've noticed lately that Bullards articles aren't even being discussed anymore. Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 18:16:00 GMT
I made this comment: "And I’ll go further that this talk scares the crap out of some" The issue is not that it challenges beliefs for all of us, for some surely. Some will look at it and some bury their head in the sand. The issue is the doubt you create as you don't conclude with what the end results may be for OCAT. Again, as I stated before (and I await your response), if I missed it, my apology. Surely you are aware that there are many people reading these posts that never engage in conversation on the forum and are not as knowledgable or savvy. So again, what is your bottom line for the lay investor because I don't see where you have come to a conclusion? Specifically: Is any line being discussed usable for purposes of trials and nothing more in your estimation? What are the possible negative sequelae for OCAT from your point of view in terms of the line being a source of revenue? These are the key things that investors want to know. I think it is reasonable for current investors and potential investors to want to know what line(s) Ocata intends to commercialize with and what regulatory challenges exist in the US and Europe. Are there going to be delays? Additional costs? Marketing limitations? These are all relevant questions associated with MA09. What I see is ample incentive to switch to a NED line at some point prior to, or during, Phase 3 trials. I'm sure they have a plan, but I'd like to know what it is.
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 18:19:43 GMT
The only difference between what Tradeup is doing and what Bullard does on SA is the platform in which it is presented. I've noticed lately that Bullards articles aren't even being discussed anymore. Why is that? And I can say the only difference between what you and the pumpers on iCell do is nothing It cuts both ways, Ridda. P.S. If you have noticed Bullard's most recent article on BioTime (also mentions STEM and OCAT) isn't being discussed then maybe you should start a thread on it. Take some initiative.
|
|
|
Post by Keybridge - Cult Member 003 on Nov 23, 2014 18:25:20 GMT
The only difference between what Tradeup is doing and what Bullard does on SA is the platform in which it is presented. I've noticed lately that Bullards articles aren't even being discussed anymore. Why is that? M. West with the assistance of Team Bullard is attempting to promote a narrative with the purpose to cast doubt and undermine OCAT and perhaps other competitors. West is clearly trying to suggest that OCAT will have problems commercializing its RPE program, which isn't true even if the company really did have to switch lines: OCAT is certainly capable of creating RPE cells from the NED lines, no differently than creating the RPE cells from the the MA09 line. (Although the scientists on this board could weigh in on that subject.) It's surprising to see, but M. West is showing very questionable character and poor judgement with not only his comments, but the medium he's using to promote his agenda; there's no other way to put it. I remember that BTX had a couple of board members resign last year under questionable circumstance, and I have to wonder what's actually going on with BTX given the nature of the personality managing that organization?
|
|
|
Post by ridda on Nov 23, 2014 18:33:29 GMT
The only difference between what Tradeup is doing and what Bullard does on SA is the platform in which it is presented. I've noticed lately that Bullards articles aren't even being discussed anymore. Why is that? And I can say the only difference between what you and the pumpers on iCell do is nothing It cuts both ways, Ridda. P.S. If you have noticed Bullard's most recent article on BioTime (also mentions STEM and OCAT) isn't being discussed then maybe you should start a thread on it. Take some initiative. Oh so I'm pumping? In what way? To me there's no difference between you and CDC or Stem D just the opposite sides of the spectrum. No balance, aleast until your back in the stock.
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 18:40:15 GMT
M. West with the assistance of Team Bullard is attempting to promote a narrative with the purpose to cast doubt and undermine OCAT and perhaps other competitors. West is clearly trying to suggest that OCAT will have problems commercializing its RPE program, which isn't true even if the company really did have to switch lines: OCAT is certainly capable of creating RPE cells from the NED lines, no differently than creating the RPE cells from the the MA09 line. (Although the scientists on this board could weigh in on that subject.) It's surprising to see, but M. West is showing very questionable character and poor judgement with not only his comments, but the medium he's using to promote his agenda; there's no other way to put it. I remember that BTX had a couple of board members resign last year under questionable circumstance, and I have to wonder what's actually going on with BTX given the nature of the personality managing that organization? Based on his published comments, West is indeed suggesting regulatory challenges for OCAT and STEM. From my experience, biotech CEO's have a tendency to exaggerate the advantages of their own science and minimize the negatives so it's always good to be skeptical of these types of comments. I'm not particularly a big fan of West but I will listen to what he has to say (based on his experience as CSO of ACT) and do my own research to see if there is any merit. And I'm sure everyone here is capable of doing the same.
|
|
|
Post by i(n) sight on Nov 23, 2014 19:34:21 GMT
I made this comment: "And I’ll go further that this talk scares the crap out of some" The issue is not that it challenges beliefs for all of us, for some surely. Some will look at it and some bury their head in the sand. The issue is the doubt you create as you don't conclude with what the end results may be for OCAT. Again, as I stated before (and I await your response), if I missed it, my apology. Surely you are aware that there are many people reading these posts that never engage in conversation on the forum and are not as knowledgable or savvy. So again, what is your bottom line for the lay investor because I don't see where you have come to a conclusion? Specifically: Is any line being discussed usable for purposes of trials and nothing more in your estimation? What are the possible negative sequelae for OCAT from your point of view in terms of the line being a source of revenue? These are the key things that investors want to know. I think it is reasonable for current investors and potential investors to want to know what line(s) Ocata intends to commercialize with and what regulatory challenges exist in the US and Europe. Are there going to be delays? Additional costs? Marketing limitations? These are all relevant questions associated with MA09. What I see is ample incentive to switch to a NED line at some point prior to, or during, Phase 3 trials. I'm sure they have a plan, but I'd like to know what it is. Thanks for your reply. Of course investors want to know, and some claim they do know and it is of no concern to them. And management has said the same. I guess some here will have to agree to disagree. Yet there are many here who don't partake in the conversation yet likely witness the goings-on and are influenced. What is interesting is your reply is framed in third person, that being "investors". You have no problem stating the following recently in first person: "I look forward to investing in OCAT again when it is further diluted, oversold and there is money to be made." /quote I am am investor and you know my position short-term to long-term outlook. Why the hell would the investor/reader want to buy more if they think... 1.) what regulatory challenges exist? That translates into = shit out of luck; 2.) Are there going to be delays, additional costs, marketing limitations? = shit out of luck. Or maybe it doesn't eventually translate to that, but to the casual observer, it does now. Doubt and fear framed in a supposed technical and academic discussion via wanting specific language from the mouth of management, which you know will not be delivered with the specificity you desire. And hence, a wide net of negativity under the guise of a technical and academic discussion to invoke fear because of specific language you will not get from management. The bigger question is why would YOU make your above quote? Here it is again: "I look forward to investing in OCAT again when it is further diluted, oversold and there is money to be made." /quote Such a statement is incongruent with your concern for "investors" who could be shit out of luck, as you would too.
|
|