RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:TrainWreck greaterfoolFred (gfF), a poster who gave himself that name and has doggedly striven to live up to it, has weighed in with the following piles:
gfF: "We can't know for sure why Mark is gone, but I think that the most likrly scenario was the failure of a critical deal that he was counting on to produce money and avoid the need for financing."
jd: That's right, you can't know for sure so why did you offer up the "critical deal" pile. In fact, you don't know anything about it, gfF. And what "critical deal" are/were you privy to to make that statement? None, that's how many. Another piece of fiction you made up! Deals, no deals, lots of deals, you know nothing about any of that.
gfF: "The failure of the NHP trial to show brain concentration last year was a disaster."
jd: I have my own thoughts about the NHP studies that were discussed in the late 2017 roadshows. I sat in on all the roadshows. When it was stated that we would be doing NHP studies with xB3-001 and using advanced imaging technologies, I remember wondering about a number of things. I knew that without targets (brain tumour cells) that xB3-001 wouldn't stick around for much more than a couple of hours. xB3-001 would just get expelled from the brain. I also knew that no matter how sophisticated the scanning technology is, it can't magnify an image to the point where you can see or determine which side of the BBB that molecules are on.
So, in order to look at brain distribution of xB3-001 in NHPs, the NHPs must have targets available for the xB3-001 molecule (for the Herceptin part of the xB3-001). Unless Herceptin (and xB3-001) attach to an HER2 receptor, Herceptin just gets broken down and thrown out by the body. NHP Brain distribution studies with xB3-001 require that brain tumours exist in the NHPs, and that means killing the monkeys.
So, gfF, do you wanna kill the monkeys? I mean, do you think Bioasis wants to kill the monkeys? What would Bioasis be trying to learn from NHP brain distribution studies? Are there other ways of learning about that stuff? How important is that knowledge right now? Historically, how much science has been advanced when some aspects of the studies are assumed to be true so that the entire study can carry on? Almost all science advances that way. Calm down, gfF, it's ok!
The peripheral studies were not a disaster. They showed where xB3-001 collects in the body, which organs, and where previously unknown concentrations might exist. With this study Bioasis reported that xB3-001 can enter the lymphatic system. Yesterday I mentioned the lungs. The study was no disaster, that's for sure.
So what about getting xB3 into monkeys' brains? Whether we've proven it or not, the company and its partners are moving ahead as though it has. Prothena went ahead despite of what you call a disaster, gfF. The pre-IND meeting with the FDA is still scheduled for June. The corporate presentation timelines have been tweaked for scheduling and delivery reasons but are still pretty much where they've been for quite a while.
No disaster, gfF. Everything is moving ahead as reported.
amillionorbust: "Exactly Fred, we were on the cusp and didn’t close. ABC. Always be closing. MD failed. Sience ads up."
jd: We're not selling cars or life insurance here, amob. Bioasis puts potential partners in the position to make decisions about additions to their pipelines. No amount of closing on the part of Bioasis will change the FACT that pharmas have a huge amount to consider about pipeline additions. Does their part of the drug have a chance to work? Are there competing technologies? Is the commercial market big enough? What resources (money, people, facilities, etc) must the pharma bring to the table? ABC. Always be closing. Yeah, always be closing your mouth about closing is the best advice about pharma deals. You don't close them. You wait until they're ready to tell you. And then you start negotiating terms. Then exchange term sheets, draft agreements, final agreement, publicity terms, lawyer completions, buy stamps, lick them, put them in the mail, etc.
gfF: "The fact that it was not reported in this NHP study is a PR disaster."
jd: Man, that's two disasters in one day, gfF. It's the end of the woild! Let's talk about PR, public relations, gfF. Bioasis has never gotten any PR stroke out of press releases relating to the science. The announcements of the peptide development, Scarpa's work, Texas Tech, pain with MedImmune, lymph system penetration, nothing that I can recall ever caused a bump in the stock. Maybe monkey data would help, but not if the monkeys died. My own opinion is that the monkey data would do nothing for the share price unless we were already being watched by the USA biotech and financial media. I expect that to come. It's why we're in business.
Don't bother with the 20/20 hindsight stuff. It's history. The only things that count today are what we know today, and what we're doing today with what we have today. The CEO has been in the job for less than 3 weeks. If I remember correctly, we gave Mark Day the benefit of the doubt for at least a few months before the knives came out, teeth were bared and eyes were rolled back in delirious pursuit of blood.
For once, get behind the company (YOUR COMPANY) and recognize that this is about the advancement of xB3 and the money we all should be able to make from it. This isn't about who did or didn't do something back then.
jdstox