Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum TELESTA THERAPEUTICS INC T.TST

"Telesta Therapeutics Inc is a biopharmaceutical company. The Company is engaged in the research, development, manufacturing and commercialization of human health products and technologies."

TSX:TST - Post Discussion

TELESTA THERAPEUTICS INC > The Majority of Urologists Supported a Yes Vote
View:
Post by DamnYankees on Nov 19, 2015 4:35pm

The Majority of Urologists Supported a Yes Vote

As mentioned earlier, 6 of the 9 Urologists in the meeting, including O'Donnel and Kamat, supported the regulatory approval of MCNA. The 7th could have been swayed in a restricted approval, and the balance of the committee, none of whom were Urologists, rejected the logic of those in the frontline battle against BC and voted no. Something about that doesn't sit well. This certainly has the characteristics of a skewed and pre determined show trial.
Comment by txbioinv on Nov 20, 2015 10:06am
The COO replied and specifically said 'that all but one of the practicing urologists on the panel voted in favor of MCNA'..........I will try and post my email and the TST reply regarding the FDA letter/online petition. ............GL
Comment by DamnYankees on Nov 20, 2015 10:16am
OK all but 1. Then let's call a Spade a Spade. The other one heavily influenced 8 to 10 no votes that should have swung our way. Very interested in reading the Adcomm conclusions. This was a jury deliberation where one overtly hostile and influential juror controlled the dialogue, allowed the discourse to flow far off point, and overwhelmed some who may ( more likely would) have otherwise ...more  
Comment by txbioinv on Nov 20, 2015 10:47am
Yes, I agree 100% with you; I was just stating what the Donald said. I too thought it was only 6 of 9 or 4of 6 practicing docs that voted. I will quote an old dear friend/ex boss of mine(his father was Frank Leahy - arguably greatest ND IRISH football coach all time), "This was no better than a goat f*#*cking at the local county fair". ............
Comment by txbioinv on Nov 20, 2015 10:53am
LOL........correction: "This was no better than a goat f*cking contest, at the local county fair"............
Comment by thathurt on Nov 20, 2015 11:19am
thanks, that further refines my summation i had Roth, Pavlovich, and Bartlett as voting no and being bladder cancer guys but my classification was based off a quick Inet search..so they likely know better i wonder if the difference is on "practicing"  but nice for the clarification... BTW on a much more important Q, any feedback on: a) whether COO or CEO were or weren't at the ...more  
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities