|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 21:05:49 GMT
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."I stand by these statements. I can generalize and speak for "investors" when I say they are interested in pertinent information (including myself). As for investment strategy and outlook I can only speak for myself. Biotech stocks (particularly early-stage) are inherently risky and like any investment there is a number of criteria I look at before considering a long/large position. For simplicity purposes, we can look at it this way: Pro's: - Science (overall very solid) - Market opportunity - Management (improved) Con's: - Risk of imminent dilution - Market Cap relative to peers - Lack of near-term catalysts So yes, I look forward to investing when it is further diluted and oversold because the risk/reward becomes more attractive. Investing has many risks and it's much healthier on an investment forum to have a balance of opinions. Without directly saying it, you are proposing a "group-think" model. If you want me to change the way I deliver information to suit your needs, it's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by i(n) sight on Nov 23, 2014 21:31:45 GMT
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."I stand by these statements. I can generalize and speak for "investors" when I say they are interested in pertinent information (including myself). As for investment strategy and outlook I can only speak for myself. Biotech stocks (particularly early-stage) are inherently risky and like any investment there is a number of criteria I look at before considering a long/large position. For simplicity purposes, we can look at it this way: Pro's: - Science (overall very solid) - Market opportunity - Management (improved) Con's: - Risk of imminent dilution - Market Cap relative to peers - Lack of near-term catalysts So yes, I look forward to investing when it is further diluted and oversold because the risk/reward becomes more attractive. Investing has many risks and it's much healthier on an investment forum to have a balance of opinions. Without directly saying it, you are proposing a "group-think" model. If you want me to change the way I deliver information to suit your needs, it's not going to happen. Your statements are incongruent. Generalize all you want in third person. And, please look over my my posts when you have a chance where I clearly lay out pros and cons so I don't where your group-think comes from. Just another ad hominem from you. You are stuck on this licensure issue. You seemed to be much more balanced in former posts but clearly perseverate as well as attack posters on this lecensure issue. You can fool some people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Cheez....I hope I got that right, or else! Go tell a blind person you look "forward" to this stock sinking; pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 23, 2014 21:43:46 GMT
Your statements are incongruent. Generalize all you want in third person. And, please look over my my posts when you have a chance where I clearly lay out pros and cons so I don't where your group-think comes from. Just another ad hominem from you. You are stuck on this licensure issue. You seemed to be much more balanced in former posts but clearly perseverate as well as attack posters on this lecensure issue. You can fool some people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Cheez....I hope I got that right, or else! Go tell a blind person you look "forward" to this stock sinking; pathetic. Why would a blind person (or potential patient) care about the daily stock price? Clinical programs will proceed as planned whether they dilute at $8 per share or $5 per share. The fluctuation of the stock price doesn't affect scientific progress like you suggest. There is little danger of the company being unable to raise funds.
|
|
|
Post by Keybridge - Cult Member 003 on Nov 23, 2014 22:29:08 GMT
The window to invest in OCAT at these price levels is closing - maybe 30 to 45 more days or so.
The OTC has been (and is) a drag on the stock price and is the source of the low volume that in turn is the principal reason for the weak price action this past week. But that situation can change very quickly depending on the timing of the Nasdaq listing and any news surrounding the start of the phase II.
The Piper Jaffray Healthcare conference is scheduled for the first week of December, which may be the first time that this management team has an opportunity to tell its story past all the legacy issues…the investment community is just learning about OCAT and its management, which should give them reason to finally take this company seriously. The ASM was the rehearsal for their formal presentations (sans the financial models). My assessment is that the presentation I saw, along with follow up discussions, will be convincing to fund managements, who are really the audience they need to reach.
Note: I noticed on the other board that there is a theory that the company may uplist very shortly due to a change in the presentation material from those shown at the ASM, where management commented and showed in their slides an uplist slated for 4Q14 or 1Q15, but the presentation slides on the OCAT.COM website only shows 4Q14 for the listing. Although the company could list at any time under a number of scenarios, I don't believe the slides are an insight, especially since it's possible that the web site slides are actually a slightly older version than what was shown. The relevant slide could have been revised at any time (even that morning) and then not handed over to the web master.
|
|
|
Post by i(n) sight on Nov 23, 2014 22:49:45 GMT
Your statements are incongruent. Generalize all you want in third person. And, please look over my my posts when you have a chance where I clearly lay out pros and cons so I don't where your group-think comes from. Just another ad hominem from you. You are stuck on this licensure issue. You seemed to be much more balanced in former posts but clearly perseverate as well as attack posters on this lecensure issue. You can fool some people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Cheez....I hope I got that right, or else! Go tell a blind person you look "forward" to this stock sinking; pathetic. Why would a blind person (or potential patient) care about the daily stock price? Clinical programs will proceed as planned whether they dilute at $8 per share or $5 per share. The fluctuation of the stock price doesn't affect scientific progress like you suggest. There is little danger of the company being unable to raise funds. Let me start with the second part. Fluctuation of stock price doesn't affect scientific progress? IF NIH had approved our lines and we could have received monies, that would not have affected the temporal sequence of events? Would that not have affected investor sentiment on stock price and ability to minimize dilution? Trials cost money, non-core costs money, defending IP's cost money (and it's coming), ability to JV from a position of strength costs money/shares, dealing with governmental agencies/FDA costs money. I guess the more money the more you can get, hence higher share price, the better off we are for the science and all the things we want to do or that that can go wrong. I agree with you that there is little danger of the company being unable to raise funds; better to raise at a higher price though I would think. Have they brought some of that on themselves in terms of market cap? Sure. For the first part, I guess ANYONE should be concerned about the price and that is inclusive of, and especially for, people who are blind and who need treatment. Price/market cap equals strength and survivability of the company moving towards thriving. Unless one wants to short/drive the price down. Last I checked, higher market cap gives one more strength and not the opposite. No sense beating a dead horse here. We'll see how it plays out in due time. I hope neither of us gets that chance to buy lower.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantsilver on Nov 23, 2014 23:14:11 GMT
ODOG gonna do well in 2015, you wait and see!!
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Nov 23, 2014 23:17:56 GMT
Your statements are incongruent. Generalize all you want in third person. And, please look over my my posts when you have a chance where I clearly lay out pros and cons so I don't where your group-think comes from. Just another ad hominem from you. You are stuck on this licensure issue. You seemed to be much more balanced in former posts but clearly perseverate as well as attack posters on this lecensure issue. You can fool some people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Cheez....I hope I got that right, or else! Go tell a blind person you look "forward" to this stock sinking; pathetic. Why would a blind person (or potential patient) care about the daily stock price? Clinical programs will proceed as planned whether they dilute at $8 per share or $5 per share. The fluctuation of the stock price doesn't affect scientific progress like you suggest. There is little danger of the company being unable to raise funds. A patient woud certainly care to read some people saying the cells they just got injected in their eye are not cGMP compliant. Walk it back all you want... it was careless and rediculous. Not the first time either and i doubt it will be the last.
|
|
|
Post by tradeup on Nov 24, 2014 1:17:53 GMT
HeyNow- You have insisted that I explicitly stated " MA09 is not cGMP compliant." I decided to do a little fact checking instead of just taking your word for it, and sure enough, I never stated that. Youve recently said MA09 can not be commercialized and also explicitely said they were not cGMP compliant (which thankfully youve walked back from after learning you were wrong). Lets not forget the issue started with tradeup writing MA09 is not cGMP compliant... I think we are all learning as we go here, tradeup included. I was done being told how idiotic me and all shareholders are some time back. 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. A patient woud certainly care to read some people saying the cells they just got injected in their eye are not cGMP compliant. Walk it back all you want... it was careless and rediculous. Not the first time either and i doubt it will be the last. Here is the link to my original unedited post on Nov 13. What you are claiming I said verbatim is false. Here is what I stated on Nov 13: "MA-09 (currently being used) was not not derived under cGMP conditions, so it is not a xeno-free line, but NED-7 is" This could have been worded better, and I have admitted as much, but it is far different than explicitly claiming "MA09 is not cGMP compliant." There is a difference. There are many stages of the derivation process. Indeed MA09 was augmented at a later date to "meet cGMP compliance" prior to clinical acceptance, and "xeno-free" is a separate issue, but I will stick with the claim that when it was originally derived it was likely not under full cGMP conditions. And I have provided ample evidence in this thread to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by jckrdu on Nov 24, 2014 1:50:01 GMT
HeyNow- You have insisted that I explicitly stated " MA09 is not cGMP compliant." I decided to do a little fact checking instead of just taking your word for it, and sure enough, I never stated that. Youve recently said MA09 can not be commercialized and also explicitely said they were not cGMP compliant (which thankfully youve walked back from after learning you were wrong). Lets not forget the issue started with tradeup writing MA09 is not cGMP compliant... I think we are all learning as we go here, tradeup included. I was done being told how idiotic me and all shareholders are some time back. 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. A patient woud certainly care to read some people saying the cells they just got injected in their eye are not cGMP compliant. Walk it back all you want... it was careless and rediculous. Not the first time either and i doubt it will be the last. Here is the link to my original unedited post on Nov 13. What you are claiming I said verbatim is false. Here is what I stated on Nov 13: "MA-09 (currently being used) was not not derived under cGMP conditions, so it is not a xeno-free line, but NED-7 is" This could have been worded better, and I have admitted as much, but it is far different than explicitly claiming "MA09 is not cGMP compliant." There is a difference. There are many stages of the derivation process. Indeed MA09 was augmented at a later date to "meet cGMP compliance" prior to clinical acceptance, and "xeno-free" is a separate issue, but I will stick with the claim that when it was originally derived it was likely not under full cGMP conditions. And I have provided ample evidence in this thread to back it up. Tradeup - Thanks for setting the record straight. Yes, there's a big difference.... and I suspect a good number of people reading this thread haven't really spent time understanding those nuances... i.e. what you did say and what you didn't say. I guess if someone just continually repeats something, people will eventually believe its true. So much easier to just conclude you have an agenda, and that PW said in some vague nebulous response to the NED question that "manufacturing is on top of it"... so nothing to worry or think about here.
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Nov 24, 2014 1:59:33 GMT
HeyNow- You have insisted that I explicitly stated " MA09 is not cGMP compliant." I decided to do a little fact checking instead of just taking your word for it, and sure enough, I never stated that. Youve recently said MA09 can not be commercialized and also explicitely said they were not cGMP compliant (which thankfully youve walked back from after learning you were wrong). Lets not forget the issue started with tradeup writing MA09 is not cGMP compliant... I think we are all learning as we go here, tradeup included. I was done being told how idiotic me and all shareholders are some time back. 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. A patient woud certainly care to read some people saying the cells they just got injected in their eye are not cGMP compliant. Walk it back all you want... it was careless and rediculous. Not the first time either and i doubt it will be the last. Here is the link to my original unedited post on Nov 13. What you are claiming I said verbatim is false. Here is what I stated on Nov 13: "MA-09 (currently being used) was not not derived under cGMP conditions, so it is not a xeno-free line, but NED-7 is" This could have been worded better, and I have admitted as much, but it is far different than explicitly claiming "MA09 is not cGMP compliant." There is a difference. There are many stages of the derivation process. Indeed MA09 was augmented at a later date to "meet cGMP compliance" prior to clinical acceptance, and "xeno-free" is a separate issue, but I will stick with the claim that when it was originally derived it was likely not under full cGMP conditions. And I have provided ample evidence in this thread to back it up. I know what you said, i was there. The entire conversation is open for all to read. I was giving you more credit then you probably deserved because your actual statement was incoherent. And that wasnt your only statement on this subject, not to mention your friend bullard who said in a seeking alpha article the cells being used in the trial werent cGMP compliant. Also, read the 2006 nature paper start to finish, you'll see exactly how they were derived - you dont need to guess.
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Nov 24, 2014 2:16:46 GMT
Look at your actual quote... lets fact check it indeed... not only were xeno-free and cGMP conflated (my original beef) but you went out of you way to say "MA09 (CURRENTLY BEING USED) were not derived under cGMP...". Your actual articulation is even more clearly wrong because the currently used MA09 are derived under cGMP. Even if you could definitively show MA09 cells were once originally derived without consideration for cGMP, they were adapted/augmented/whatever youd like to call it, to be fully cGMP compliant. The MA09 cells (currently being used) ARE derived under gGMP conditions.
|
|
horus
Junior Member
Posts: 96
|
Post by horus on Nov 24, 2014 3:21:59 GMT
Page 5 annual shareholder thread:
Also Page 5 annual shareholder thread:
Page 1 SMD/AMD Phase II differences thread:
Page 3 SMD/AMD Phase II differences thread:
|
|
|
Post by Keybridge - Cult Member 003 on Nov 24, 2014 3:23:34 GMT
seekingalpha.com/article/509861-biotime-fast-lanes-and-speed-bumps-on-the-road-to-regenerative-medicineThis author thinks "Biotime CEO Michael West has a long track record of commercial failure and broken promise". Its marketing has been aided by overly optimistic rhetoric from investment newsletter writers who claim the company has cracked the DNA command code and that it can produce new cardiovascular systems on demand. BioTime has achieved no such thing. For two decades, Michael West has been trying to defeat death through pioneering research in stem cell therapies that could potentially alter the face of medicine as we know it. But although he has led many novel experiments and produced numerous papers and has written a book about stem cell-based medicine, his efforts have failed to generate any products that have successfully cleared FDA scrutiny and made it to the marketplace. The remarkable turnaround at Biotime was due to West's ability to stoke investors' imaginations to the possibilities of stem cell research, just as he had been able to do, for a time, at both Geron and Advanced Cell. When West took over, he immediately switched the focus from BioTime's failed blood products strategy over to his stem cell-centered ambitions. One key to BioTime's promotional strategy has been the creation of numerous subsidiaries. Typically, BioTime will announce the arrival of a new subsidiary with an exciting press release, set up a website for the subsidiary, and then watch the stock pop. After that, nothing happens. Nothing at all. Several of BioTime's subsidiaries, after their initial triumphant appearance in a heralded press release, have gone on to produce no further press releases, nor anything else indicating they serve any purpose other than to promote the stock price. Telling investors anything they want to hear appears to be his M.O. And apparently he's very convincing since they keep throwing money at his company…but his recent participation with Bullard makes him look very small and petty and, might I say, desperate. Maybe BTX gets lucky with ASTY and the former Geron patents, but this does not look like a healthy organization. I'm surprised BTX isn't already trading in the $2 range headed south.
|
|
|
Post by HeyNow on Nov 24, 2014 3:35:41 GMT
I'm doing a little fact checking of my own. thebiotechinvestor.freeforums.net/thread/412/ot-biotime-dry-amd-competition" I'm fairly certain they cannot and will not commercialize with the MA-09 line. The "licensure" issue GR spoke of referred to NED-7. They will either bridge to NED-7 or an entirely new line." - Tradeup, November 3 "I believe it was in this thread we were recently discussing licensure issues regarding ACT's current MA-09 line. The takeaway being ACT will need to switch to a new line prior to commercialization. " - Tradeup, November 4 " The current line being used (MA-09) will not be commercially viable." - Tradeup, November 4 I guess if you repeat something enough times people might start to believe you, right Jckrdu? All of this of course was in immediate response to Bullard's article and the discussion surrounding his claim below: "BioTime, on the other hand, doesn't have the same uncertainty. One of the benefits to getting in the game late is the ability to develop a stem cell line that not only meets the FDA's requirements for donor documentation and manufacturing quality, but also provides an improved technique that allows for clinical grade (cGMP) and xeno-free cells. Xeno-free means the cells are not manufactured with cells or reagents of animal origin. ACT's cells, on the other hand, are not clinical grade, meaning they were not derived in "clinical-grade" conditions and were not derived without the use of animal derived products. This is, of course, another reason ACT will need to bridge to a well documented, clinical grade cell line at some point during the trials."
|
|
|
Post by ridda on Nov 24, 2014 4:23:57 GMT
I'm doing a little fact checking of my own. thebiotechinvestor.freeforums.net/thread/412/ot-biotime-dry-amd-competition" I'm fairly certain they cannot and will not commercialize with the MA-09 line. The "licensure" issue GR spoke of referred to NED-7. They will either bridge to NED-7 or an entirely new line." - Tradeup, November 3 "I believe it was in this thread we were recently discussing licensure issues regarding ACT's current MA-09 line. The takeaway being ACT will need to switch to a new line prior to commercialization. " - Tradeup, November 4 " The current line being used (MA-09) will not be commercially viable." - Tradeup, November 4 I guess if you repeat something enough times people might start to believe you, right Jckrdu? All of this of course was in immediate response to Bullard's article and the discussion surrounding his claim below: "BioTime, on the other hand, doesn't have the same uncertainty. One of the benefits to getting in the game late is the ability to develop a stem cell line that not only meets the FDA's requirements for donor documentation and manufacturing quality, but also provides an improved technique that allows for clinical grade (cGMP) and xeno-free cells. Xeno-free means the cells are not manufactured with cells or reagents of animal origin. ACT's cells, on the other hand, are not clinical grade, meaning they were not derived in "clinical-grade" conditions and were not derived without the use of animal derived products. This is, of course, another reason ACT will need to bridge to a well documented, clinical grade cell line at some point during the trials." HeyNow- Thanks for setting the record straight and what was not only said but what it inferred. Like I said earlier there is nothing different from what Tradeup is doing than what Bullard does on SA. You don't have to be a professional trader or scientist to see when someones full of $#*t
|
|
|
Post by ridda on Nov 24, 2014 4:32:27 GMT
What's even more comical are his boyfriends liking his posts and running to his defense.
|
|
|
Post by JHam on Nov 24, 2014 6:40:32 GMT
What's even more comical are his boyfriends liking his posts and running to his defense. Kind of reminds me of how you agree with anything HeyNow says. Do you ever post any of your own original ideas or just like to latch onto and ride other's coattails? It is amazing that after all the years of providing unfiltered DD in a very Rocky-esque manner, that now tradeup of all people is getting thrown under the bus. I guess no one is immune to the ACT/Ocata-cult. Once they label you as being "negative" you better run for the hills.
|
|
|
Post by icellman on Nov 24, 2014 11:11:09 GMT
Jham-
You crack me up. If your posts don't scream agenda, I don't know what does and PLEASE don't ever compare Tradeup to Rocky in any kind of form. It's an insult to Rocky and his legacy. Everyone respected Rocky because he posted just the facts and there was NO motive in his posting - only to inform. That's why he was admired so much. Of course, when Tradeup, Bullard or you are called out, you pull out the old ACTC/Ocata cult card and try to label someone. Just so transparent and sad.
|
|
|
Post by selluwud on Nov 24, 2014 15:38:20 GMT
All arguments aside (the horse is dead), doesn't the ATMP designation send a clear signal that getting licensure isn't an issue regardless of which cell line ends up being the one. I have no doubt Lanza and company will handle whatever steps are necessary to have the right product in place.
"We view this as an important step to further enable the development of our novel biological therapy in the EU with the aim of seeking marketing authorization approval. "
|
|
|
Post by Keybridge - Cult Member 003 on Nov 24, 2014 15:41:03 GMT
All arguments aside (the horse is dead), doesn't the ATMP designation send a clear signal that getting licensure isn't an issue regardless of which cell line ends up being the one. I have no doubt Lanza and company will handle whatever steps are necessary to have the right product in place. "We view this as an important step to further enable the development of our novel biological therapy in the EU with the aim of seeking marketing authorization approval. " Don't you know already - Lincensure "concerns" will never be dead. Team Bullard will keep beating this horse until ACT is a company with a $10 billion market cap.
|
|