RE:RE:RE:RE:Targeting Cancer Stem CellsI believe the company's plan is to start speaking with investors again and to do so with consistency. In the end, they will need to achieve something intriguing in cancer to propel the stock meaningfully higher in the near term. Without that, or a surprise partner showing up in NASH, they don't have much to talk to investors about. The fact they are planning on having a more consistent effort to speak with investors going forward is an indication they may have good cancer news on the horizon as it would not be a smart move to start speaking to investors if the prospects for TH-1902 had waned as the phase 1b trial has moved forward. So, my best guess is they know they have something worthwhile to report before too much longer on cancer. How impactful what they may report will be and when they report it, no one knows. But the various hints we are seeing indicate to me something at least somewhat positive is likely between now and Christmas.
While the large shareholders I know certainly make our views known to management when required, we are still friendly shareholders. We get to tell management our opinions but it is them who have to make the decisions and they have a lot more info than we do off which to base those decisions. If you want to connect my e-mail address is relonard@stewardshipparters.com.
TH1902 wrote: First off, thank you for posting Qwerty22, as a non-scientific investor in THERA, this sounds good...sometimes it takes the market time to understand the science from my perspective.
Nice weekend to everyone!!! And thanks to everyone posting on behalf of Thera, because I feel that the company IR is very lacking in getting new investors interested in the story...they can do more imo...SPECEO should steer the board in this direction imo...I don't know how you sit back and tolerate all the mis steps over the years SPECEO... your group needs to apply some pressure...would be happy to discuss...best to all...
qwerty22 wrote: It reads really well, like all their pre-clinical work. The obvious question is will these findings translate into OBSERVABLE efficacy signals in patients? You have to hope it does.
There are many different ways to go after a cancer indication. One way is to target adjuvant treatment. That's where a drug is given after the primary treatment to stop recurrence. Basically you treat your patients normally in the their primary treatment. Then split the population in two and give one half SOC and the other SOC+TH1902. Success is measured by the % of patients that have their cancer come back. I don't expect they'll do that any time soon, maybe later if they ever get an approval. But this data seems to support this type of approach, mopping up any resistant CSCs left after treatment. Maybe something for a future potential partner/buyer to contemplate.
It's all good stuff, something we are use to in their preclinical work. We need the clinical evidence to unlock the value though.