Corporate communicationsprokofiev, my principal concern regarding corporate reporting was regarding the trial results (see my earlier post below). In the "clarification" statement, management stated that the "... low-frequency pulse (LFP) version of the PoNS therapy, ... was intended in the trial design to be non-therapeutic." Surely this is disingenuous? Also, the CEO on a couple of occasions during the conference call stated that he was "ecstatic" with the results as the stock price plummeted.
RE:Clinical Results - Proven Efficacy
Thanks for your great insights prokofiev and steelinvestor. But in the context of the numerous anecdotal past PoNS studies and evidence (I have just read Norman Doidge's book), management must have had reliable knowledge of the probable outcome of the LFP, so why set the primary endpoint LFP/HFP gap so wide? Was it imposed on HSM or were the results of the LFP surprisingly good? Surely it can never be a good thing to "fail" the primary endpoint?
I am also troubled by the SEDI situation since it provides an excellent investing tool, and it
appears that HSM is not in compliance. I did make contact but they did not have an immediate answer and will get back to me.