RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Thera on twitter with the KEY... You could argue that just because the trial is still ongoing is proof enough they "think" they have the "key". If they didn't think they had the key the trials would stop. This is the problem with these statements you can go around in circles convincing yourself they do or don't have special meaning. Maybe they are less about what Paul thinks and just there to get other people thinking about THTX.
Once you've decided these sorts of statements are devoid of any real scientific/clinical content maybe the best thing to do is to just dismiss them.
It does feel a little like the push they did in the Autumn before the last cash raise in the new year. The only difference is they are actually enrolling patients this time and as you say those patients are generating data and at some point that data needs to be shared. Last time it was NASH and the opinions of KOLs and an opaque FDA process as the driver. Less fudge factor this time assuming the cash raise follows the data release and not the other way around.
Wino115 wrote: I get it, but let's work from the premise that Paul knows a whole lot more than we do and he's likely far more adept at connecting some of the disparate datapoints coming out of the trial with the help of Marsolais, Belivieu, Rothemberg, Cancer Advisory Panel.
We don't know, but he knows what the 24/48 hr plasma readings showed, what the pace of efficacy vs SAEs was at each reading, what the other PK/PD data shows, and they now have a few hundred readings on this kind of data by now. That can tell you a lot --nothing they have to announce as a "material" issue, but it certainly can tell you a lot about how this PDC is doing in the body and what it may or may not be doing.
I agree with you that we know nothing definitive and likey they don't yet either until more rounds/patients keep clocking more data --so we are in agreement that nothing being said is scientifically definitive. But that doesn't mean there's an informed information content attributed to the statement. It's not just
thinking --they are definitely
seeing actual data in human patients and if it was not at all informing them in a manner to lend more credence to their statement such as they have released, as opposed to not lending more credence to that statement, they would not be saying it. I'm also all about nothing being definitive until there's a statisticaly supported more meaningful conclusion, but they do know a lot more than what little we have seen.
palinc2000 wrote: Only my friend Donald Trump has the power of "thinking" about something and its done like he did when he declassified top secret documents.
Unfortunately Paul does not posess that God given power and we will have to be a little more patient to find out if they find the key
Wino115 wrote: Recalling some of the original discussion around what kind of therapy they were hoping for, a lot revolved around the idea that their PDC internalized really quickly into the tumor cell via SORT1 and, because of that, it fooled MDC-1 reflux resistance, so got to work killing the cell where other drugs didn't. So 1) rapid internalization & 2) gets by resistance. That is a "key" into the cell, otherwise it woudl be puked out and be no better than any other drug.
In a way, we sort of saw tantalizing possibilities with patient #2 who was on it for 30 weeks or so, and the fact we saw some positive signs on patients who were treated and then resisted, on average, 8 other drugs. The plasma work probably also showed it internalized given the 11% free number. Marsolais has said they saw it internalize quickly.
We haven't seen it in enough patients yet to be sure, but if so, it would be the key --you get in tumors that others can't, you get in fast, you kill it off. We saw bits and pieces of all of that. Maybe they've seen more of the same. Remember, we know it most likely will work this way on 30-50% of the patients if we're lucky. It won't work for everyone given the different tumors, environments, previous treatments, type of cancer and physiology.
PWIB123 wrote: Nah, I don't think so. Maybe, but in the context of how THTX has communicated in the past and the point in time with which the statement is being made, it's highly unlikely. I think they want the investment community to know they have something, but aren't quite ready to articulate exactly how it is the key.
palinc2000 wrote: The statement by itself means absolutely nothing because it is missing the following
'´and we are in the midst of conducting a Phase 1 b Clinical Trial in humans to prove that Concept"
However personnally I would not have posted that statement unless I had seen some results in humans resembling some of the spectacular results in the pre clinical study .That would be the most favorable interpretation of why he issued that statement at this time
A less favorable interpretation would be that he has not seen anything in the trial that would obviously lead to the conclusion that the Concept cannot be proven..... In the latter the dream is still alive and maybe the need to raise cash is imminent
qwerty22 wrote:
I guess you could say this is based on preclinical and Ph1a but with 1b running if they aren't sitting on something that is either a solid, decent responder number or looks odds on to convert into that in the near future then I don't know what......
Given he hasn't shut up. It's time to put up Paul!
longterm56 wrote: Interesting. At first I thought this quote was an "overstatement" by an enthisiastic CEO in front of the public, but if that was the case they would not have continued to publicize it, would they?
-LT
TH1902 wrote: https://twitter.com/Theratech_/status/1575188642175369216?s=20&t=QS8afHeKpFBSgstkF5qaLw