RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Financial and others Have to say QWERTY, your questioning and head-scratching around the program was good objective analysis and ultimately right. I wonder if they would have gone solo with just the FDA and no additional costs? The statements make it seem like maybe. But I think they still would have as they've seen their plate fill up with oncology very rapidly. EMA harmonization was probably necessary in order to talk with the Euro players.
Anyway, you earn a few more stars from me for your persipicacious views.
qwerty22 wrote:
Paul can say what he wants about the future of NASH because like the rest of us he doesn't have a Crystal Ball, he just needs to stay vague and plausible. What we actually know is they won't be dosing patients until something changes. That might be the right commercial decision given the circumstances but it doesn't help move the stock. Milestones matter and we just got a less than perfect one. But we could all see it coming, right? Nobody was saying Ph3 was a done deal?
There is absolutely no reason to kill this program off so saying they are not ruling anything out is just stating the obvious, we shouldn't be applauding them for that.
scarlet1967 wrote: Yes that was then and their plan has changed, again the partnership idea isn't new as it was even mentioned few months ago they have reassessed and now they are open to it from the beginning of the process which is a good thing, one has to evaluate and reevaluate business decisions based on the educated potential best possible outcome.Again they are not ruling out anything at the moment, the only thing which they said and is where they stand as per now is they certainly won't give up the NASH protocol with or without partners and I don't believe they should.
canadapiet wrote: When i talked to mrs. Gibson and suggested the possibility of partnering,
she said it would be a pitty to partner and give away "the bulk of profits"...
...????!!!!! They wanted to keep it inhouse and go it alone!
scarlet1967 - (7/15/2021 12:29:16 PM) RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Financial and others They got the EMA onboard by altering the original trial design which will cost more, the partnership idea was discussed during the chat with concord so it's not a u-turn as some suggested, the added cost might just tip it over but again they "certainly " won't give it up absent partners, why should they?
Yes their oncology program can be approved but that won't happen tomorrow and if not NASH is about everything they have in their R&D pipeline.
Plan A seems to be to partner for the costly NASH trial and they are there now looking actively for a partner as they hired a third party company to assist them with just that so not shelved or inactive. Plan B is to go alone, if oncology is no go they have as per end of May about $57 M, the NASH trial's cost is paid on a proforma basis and not in advance so they can start it and finance it later during process. If oncology is successful the SP should appreciate progressively as the program progresses with good results starting with Q4 2021 and completed phase 1 2022, starting phase 2 2022 etc then in the next 6 to 12 months they can start thinking about an offering with better terms at better prices to finance NASH and oncology. But I believe they will spend few months to get a partner first failing that they will start the program and swallow the extra expenses. As far as we know they might have been thinking about a partnership for a while not surprised at all since they now have a board member who have contributed to make deals like that in the past also many here including myself wanted them to partner with a biotech for either oncology or mostly NASH. Now that they announce it why talking about the program is dead?