RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:New corporate presentation is on the website Don't get me wrong, I agree with you regarding the perceived potential at this point. But I have been around long enough to know that things never seem to work out exactly as we expect. Sometimes better than expected and sometimes worse. Hard to know in advance how things will ultiamtely shake out.
jeffm34 wrote: No it's not too early to say anything about that. That's why I said "potential" market. Potential means best case scenario. TH's actual "potential" market for NASH is much smaller than most people here think and is multiple times smaller than TH's "potential " oncology market.
SPCEO1 wrote: It is too early to say anything definitive about that as we don't know how successful the cancer trial will be and the NASH market is potentially huge (and it is not hard to see it getting even bigger as the research continues to highlight the connections to CVD, among other issues) and no company has yet taken control of serving the NASH market yet.
jeffm34 wrote: The potential market for TH's oncology program is multiple times larger than its NASH program. The only way NASH leapfrogs oncology is if they get bad phase 1 results for TH1902
qwerty22 wrote:
In fact NASH will be big and sexy if they get it moving and should leapfrog cancer once it happens.
OK well I got to ask what are the 2nd hand sources saying is going on in Europe?
SPCEO1 wrote: They need to get the stock price up and leading with your "sexiest" program is likely the reason for that. But maybe they have also seen something encouraging in the early bloodwork from the first patient that makes them feel more confident as well. Notice the additional cancers on the list now too - the list keeps growing with each presentation, which is good. There is clearly more going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of on cancer too that may be giving the company encouragement on that front.
I like your idea with regard to Europe. But I have heard from second hand sources that things may not be as bad regarding Europe as we think.
I am not sure what took so long to put the HIV business on the back burner in these presentations but I am glad it has finally been done.
qwerty22 wrote: Seems to me they are re-emphasizing HIV NASH again (were they calling it "general and HIV NASH" before???). "Assessing EMA strategy" seems far more vague than their strat with the FDA, it doesn't even necessarily suggest there is a concrete interactive process going on with a defined targeted outcome (I feel much more confident that is what is happening with the FDA). My overactive imagination immediately went to a dual strat of targeting HIV NASH in Europe, to get the drug on the market in some form, bypassing whatever is troubling the EMA atm, and a general/HIV strat in the US. Seems fanciful though. Wouldn't stop expanding into general NASH in Europe at a later date.
I tend to think you put your lead program first. So putting a Ph1 ahead of a Ph3 says something about managements thinking. Again probably just emphasizes the importance of actually getting NASH started.
SPCEO1 wrote: Leading with oncology now.