RE:RE:RE:RE:No SP reaction to TH1902 good news Problem is we are trying to nuance a definition where no firmly agreed definition exists. Here's my go again.
1) I would say they definitely have evidence of anti-tumour activity. The 53% PR counts as that, more PRs would be great but one is enough for that in my view given that PR is the standard RECIST measure of activity.
2) There is some uncertainty about whether that activity came from the PDC or free docetaxel, both have the potential to be anti-tumour molecules. As the company rightly said evidence points to it coming from PDC entry. As (I think) SPCEO overstated they had "proved" that fact with the evidence. Make your own mind up where the truth lies. I like Paul's word "directionally" correct. It has the right amount of honesty and fudge for me.
3) I'm happy they took a meaningful step forward with this data release. They get 7.5/10 on the clinical front from the 1a data from me. It's more clear the problem isn't clinical atm. Problem is there is nobody to tell the market what to think.
jfm1330 wrote: Read what I wrote correctly. I said what they have disclosed is still in the anecdotal territory. This is not a scientific proof. What I think is my opinion relevant only for myself. I will start to put a disclaimer at the end of my messages... Never rely on an opinion written by an anonymous person on a message board to make an investment decision. It can be a small part of the puzzle, but no more than that.
TH1902 wrote: I'm not a biotech/science guy so I take your word for it that POC has been achieved.