[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Darp101 [@DarpResearch](/creator/twitter/DarpResearch) on x XXX followers Created: 2025-06-05 18:28:59 UTC It did not take long for someone in the $NGENF drug trial for SCI repair to come forward and point out how unimaginative many in the stock market have been about the implications of the results. I totally agree with him. I was in NVG-291 chronic trial at SRA, what would you like to know? Please understand I speak only for my personal past experience, not Shirley Ryan or NervGen, (and I don’t know any proprietary information anyway. ) The Facility and Company were excellent and ethical in conduct towards me in every way. I have every confidence in them! If you are considering participating in the ongoing NervGen subacute trial, I would highly recommend. I was injured at C5 (swelling to C4), in a MVA several years ago, motor and sensory incomplete. Also: Here’s some takeaways from Tuesday’s NervGen conference call: XXX percent of NVG-291 subjects experienced uninterrupted, steep improvement in arms/hands, during the X month injection period as shown in Motor Evoked Potential testing. Some test subjects entered the trial unable to pick up a cup. Three months later, they could. This finding was unambiguous and in stark contrast to the placebo group. However, in the Perez Lab, they did not find increased signal in the TA (tibialis anterior). NervGen scientists now theorize that for humans, and given location of this muscle, more than XX days is necessary for neural regrowth in the legs. However, a majority of the NVG-291 dosed subjects still made improvements on the XX meter walk. Why? (They did not explore in call, but it’s reasonable to theorize positive associations with NVG-291 and neural plasticity, improvements in central pattern generator, etc. Why wasn’t that positive data on XX meter walk in dosed recipients compelling? More-- XXX engagements  **Related Topics** [stocks](/topic/stocks) [$ngenf](/topic/$ngenf) [Post Link](https://x.com/DarpResearch/status/1930693347586294114)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Darp101 @DarpResearch on x XXX followers
Created: 2025-06-05 18:28:59 UTC
It did not take long for someone in the $NGENF drug trial for SCI repair to come forward and point out how unimaginative many in the stock market have been about the implications of the results. I totally agree with him. I was in NVG-291 chronic trial at SRA, what would you like to know? Please understand I speak only for my personal past experience, not Shirley Ryan or NervGen, (and I don’t know any proprietary information anyway. ) The Facility and Company were excellent and ethical in conduct towards me in every way. I have every confidence in them! If you are considering participating in the ongoing NervGen subacute trial, I would highly recommend.
I was injured at C5 (swelling to C4), in a MVA several years ago, motor and sensory incomplete. Also: Here’s some takeaways from Tuesday’s NervGen conference call: XXX percent of NVG-291 subjects experienced uninterrupted, steep improvement in arms/hands, during the X month injection period as shown in Motor Evoked Potential testing.
Some test subjects entered the trial unable to pick up a cup. Three months later, they could. This finding was unambiguous and in stark contrast to the placebo group.
However, in the Perez Lab, they did not find increased signal in the TA (tibialis anterior). NervGen scientists now theorize that for humans, and given location of this muscle, more than XX days is necessary for neural regrowth in the legs.
However, a majority of the NVG-291 dosed subjects still made improvements on the XX meter walk. Why? (They did not explore in call, but it’s reasonable to theorize positive associations with NVG-291 and neural plasticity, improvements in central pattern generator, etc. Why wasn’t that positive data on XX meter walk in dosed recipients compelling? More--
XXX engagements
