RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Phase II Resumes, Upbeat NR
goldn1 wrote:
Hempy:
You recently made a post about TLT creating generational wealth in the future. I would love to see that and bought into this company initially thinking they were on to something, but there are other treatments which are advancing and TLT has a hard time doing things in a timely manner. The results of the first 12 patients was a big disappointment, imo as if treated propertly, it could have put TLT on the map. I am surprised that scans are not done prior to enrollment showing other cancers as these patients have been bcg unresponsive and I am sure have had a lot of treatment/scans/re-treatment, etc. Regardless, it is the iniability to fill the bladder properly is something that shouldn't happen in a PH2...
I would love to see this technology work for the patients and investors, but @ 17 cents, why do you feel the rest of the world outside of stockhouse has no interest or excitement. not mackie, not anyone that may have went to the investor conference, it seems most big shareholders are dumping any chance they can get and don't see a bright future for TLT.
Thanks,
G1
Goldy...
I am just as frustrated (if not more) re: what happened. Firstly, we have a management team & BOD that lacks a single urologist, & Dr. Mandel MD/PHD appears to have a primary interest in photobiology & its application in dermatology/other disease. It's always helpful to have "at least" one set of expert eyes seated at a decision-making level. If we had relevant urological expertise on the BOD (& one who is not immersed in research or immunotherapy), this would have given us the ability to not only add insight or an additional perspective, but also would've provided an opportunity to cross check or at least question relevant decisions. Secondly, our "relevant" experts on the medical/scientific advisory board are supposed to be our scientific stewards & they obviously overlooked an important detail. IMO, they are the ones who primarily dropped the ball on this one...& this is an advisory board that consists of "three" urologists. Lastly, the pre-IND FDA meeting & FDA IND approval also suggested all was well in TLTland, which makes me think we got the rubber stamp as it relates at least to the screening protocol. The delay was likely due to factors unrelated to screening/treatment dosing. This is where more involvement/scrutiny by the FDA via an FTD or BTD can help, especially with small start-ups.
So it seems there was some shared oversight at multiple points/levels, but I can't directly or fully blame mgmt or the BOD on what happened. If the company failed at anything, it failed at including an additional layer of expertise at the BOD level imo.
As for the bright future of this company...it's all about TLD-1433 & its biosimilars. And our PDT adds some icing. I believe TLT will get to the finish line despite stumbling along the way. But a reputable place like RPCCC doesn't just come along & choose our compound out of a hat. A place like RPCCC chooses us because it believes TLD-1433 has the "best" potential in curing cancer. IMO, odds are pretty good that other centers will follow & if RPCCC data is promising, they will certainly expand its use. In the end, I could really care less what the outside world or others think. Good luck...