I'm not angry vinn. I apologise if I came across that way. I...

I'm not angry vinn. I apologise if I came across that way. I came to this thread because I saw the ridiculous response letter, and figured those who wished to promote "setting the record straight" may wish to hear that there are severe inaccuracies in the response claiming to do so.

The "two cent bio stock" which you pointed out I often post on has three gene therapies in clinical trials (including phase III) for four different diseases. With published trial data. And that's all for a $20m market cap. I would not be so quick to be critical of them in comparison to MSB, which has a market cap a hundred times larger at the same point in product development - particularly when both companies are developing potentially "game changing" technologies. I say that up only as a comparison since you seemed to wish to discuss it, however I don't believe we should get too far off topic in the MSB forum.

I do not understand why my input would be taken to be argumentative? I simply pointed out that there are several errors made in a response by one biotech advisor to the criticism of other biotech advisors, and I have not passed judgement on MSB directly for these errors made by an external entity.

If you were to read my previous posts in stocks that I hold, you would see that I accept and have even encouraged people with criticisms of the stocks I hold to discuss the flaws they see in my investments, as I am aware that the easiest person for us to fool is ourselves. I do not consider an ad hominem response accusing someone of being "hand fed" by a corporation to be an adequate retort to my criticism of the merit of accuracy behind the Lodge Partners response. I do understand this topic, and I do take my investments seriously.

You have said you "dont give a rats tail about pubmed stuff" and would prefer to go on what "the CEO and the board and good old common sense" tell you - but the "pubmed stuff" is the science upon which this technology, and this company relies. There is no FDA approval without proof that the technology exists, and MSB will not see further payments for milestones from Teva without adequate trials.

khunfoti: I am happy to provide input. Publishing of trial data can take anywhere from a month or so to several years, depending on a number of factors. These factors include whether the journal to which the paper is being accepted considers it to be good enough for their publication, and whether the peer review process results in the reviewers considering aspects of the paper to be inaccurate, unscientific, uninformative, or simply inappropriate. The more prestigious the journal, the more strongly scrutinised the paper tends to be (but not always).

My comment regarding The 1052 MPC articles is not to do with the date of their submission. Many of them simply aren't necessarily worth looking at because they don't have anything at all to do with MSB's technology. For example, the paper Human Mut T Homolog 1 (MTH1): a roadblock for the tumor-suppressive effects of oncogenic RAS-induced ROS. dscusses how these cells affect the growth of certain cancers.

Mesenchymal precursor cells exist naturally in all of us (and most mammals). They also have a variety of normal functions within the body. Similarly, STRO-1 is a normal protein found on some of these mesenchymal precursor cells naturally within the body. STRO-1+ cells tend to be more proliferative, hence the interest in them in comparison to STRO-1- cells. As another example, a pubmed search for STRO-1 also shows up papers such as this paper on similarities in STRO-1+ mesenchymal precursor cells in cats and humans.

If you read my sentiment you will notice that my sentiment is not "sell". I am merely saying that I am highly skeptical of unpublished data and post-hoc markers of success, and that the response vinn has quoted above is terribly inaccurate and highly flawed.