Wino115 wrote: I would agree. Lots of info, given quickly and they hit all the key points. No rambling, very professional. Both CEO and CMO -- articulate and on point the whole way. I'd like to think we helped nudge the along in being more scripted.
There were also some real new nuggets in there, at least for me.
1. There will be 3 sites with MD Anderson as lead. I could not make out the other two. Post the escalation trial, they will expand that again to more sites.
2. The FDA approved this with the use of only one animal for the safety testing -- rats -- as opposed to the usual two. I guess the familiarity with the toxin and the clinical results helped here.
3. If I heard this right (it was toward the end) they said they have figured out a way to also block the receptor and this adds to the safety profile as the toxin only gets to the tumor cells. I don't know how this works, if they give the dose, let it find receptors, and then give a blocking drug or what. The scientists up here will have to educate me on what they meant with that phrase. I didn't get anything other than that phrase -- "we have also figured out how to block the receptor". That was one of the lingering questions we all had.
4. Marsolais's description of how they were surprised with the colorectal efficacy was very telling. Evidently docetaxal does not work on colorectal cancer tumors. But it did when put in to their peptide and this surprised them. So he said he is proof that we have a completely new chemical agent in effect. Very powerful example of the potential with the platform. Exciting.
5. They were really clear on the vascular mimicry being novel and having proof they've shown they have proof it has broken up in clinical trials. This was powerfully articulated.
6. Pauls summary included a few new points -- depending on how it goes, they may have safety data within the first 1 or 2 patients if it is statistically shown that there is no weight loss or neutropenia. That is all that is necessary to show the safety. He made it almost seem that once they are past the dosage trial, they may be able to at least proclaim "safety!" rather quickly on just a handful of results if they are consistent. There was also discussion of efficacy coming out from the trial rather quickly. I don't want to misstate what he said so just listen to his closing remarks. But he made it seem like given the nature of what they are after, if there is highly significant efficacy, they believe the FDA will move the forward quickly.
All for now, need to listen again.
So if Leah reads this board -- I know I can be harsh on pushing the company to up their capital market interactions and persuasion on their strategy. So I am equally fair in giving encouragement when it's done well. I will say that this was done well. They were clearly well prepared and there did not seem to be any off-the-cuff unprofessional remarks. They seemed to have that bullet point list of key concepts and key words to get the point over. They also knew the time limit and worked efficiently within that time limit. Paul got in a quick summary with focus on revenues and growing them but didn't go over too long on HIV, Marsolais did a very good job hitting the most important points and didn't seem to waste a word -- to the point and powerfully delivered. Then Paul's summary did a good job. They were never cut off. So this was the best I've heard them and believe they must have prepared a whole lot more and they now seem to have those key points with data, history, strategy -- so they can convince you they know what they're doing. Well done and keep getting better would be my message to Leah. I am sure she put some work in with them to condense it and hit high points for a 30 minute call, so very good.
realitycheck4u wrote: Excellent job fellas. Really well done.