Paul,
Before my reply, I checked few things.
I am not neurologist, stroke or TBI expert, nor I have field knowledge, or anything similar. I do not know background of the Mr. Castro post(s), but I do know that memantine (M :3,5-dimethyl-1-amino-adamantane) and amantidine (A:1-amino-adamantane) are older compaunds than I am (close to 40), and my PhD thesis was on adamantane class-compounds chemistry. Both molecule are initially developed as antiviral (influenza A), and accidentally discovered as antiparkinsonian-dopamine receptor agonist. Memantine is also muscle relaxant. In last ten years European researches and Children's .. (Boston) teams done lot of work on M as NMDA antagonist for neuroprotection.
As for NMDA non-competitive SELECTIVE Calcium channel SUBTYPE blocker antagonist, M and A are not similar to MK-801 by structure of the molecules or the mechanism reaction. Also Cerestat is not similar to Selfotel (competitive NMDA, Ciba, CGS 19755: cis-4-phosphonomethyl-2-piperidine-carboxylic acid) by structure, action mechanism, and severe side effects which halted CIBA trials. Their comparison is speculative, not scientific. Cerestat and MK-801 are similar by action-mechanism.
I do not know from where Mr. Castro obtain data for Cerestat Phase II stroke trials, but data are not correct. There are clinical relevant long term positive effects comparing to placebo. Regards the TBI the Cerestat patients was at list two times severe ill than in placebo arm. Death are not relevant for this trials (not comparable), but actuate for disability is.
Stroke is acute, not chronic disease, and ~90 % of all calcium-caused neuronal damage are in FIRST 24-48 hours. In this period the disease has to be treated effectively. This is where Cerestat come, not citocolime, memantine, and other neuroprotectot/neuroregenerator drugs. They are all post-mortal treatment. "Cosmetic drug". Cerestat action is fast and powerful, as it has to be to reach and protect brain area where stroke hit. It has side effects, but if they are not life-treating and manageable (as CNSI stated), than it has good probability that it will be approved by FDA.
After >20 years of the basic research on M, why nobody (big pharma or biotech) didn't started clinical for stroke with M?
Cerestat trials are now undergoing for 9 months. If there are severe side effects, it will be halted immediately. Trials manager and controller do not play game with people life, they save them or help them live better life. Will results (interim) be positive? Who knows!
Regards the stock price, if some investors can take "heat" and can't logically subtract small peace in global view, than CNSI is not for them. Also volume of ~20K speak for itself.
More important, Cerestat is not only thing way investor should consider CNSI. It trials failed, stock will dive, but their program is not based only on Cerestat. CNSI is CNS biotech with several good programs.
Paul and others, shareholders meeting experience can't be substituted with SI threads, announcements, press releases and others.
I will not further comment. Interim results will clear things one way or other.
Good luck to all of as.
mz |
