RE:RE:RE:RE:The DataI am sure these anomalies that you point out while not being taken into account by the market are well aware to the FDA and other trained eyes.
So while we complain about how the data is presented and needing to get more visibility to gain interest to get the stock more accurately valued I think what Dr. Mandel said, "I am encouraged by the clinical results to date" and Vera, "If the trends continue 'TLT' is on track to achieving..." is more telling. I don't think they are the type to paint a rosier picture than necessary.
Going forward I think we should less expect that these periodic updates will move the stock and more likely see some news release out of the blue saying they have the BTD. For that reason it should gradually move higher as the action from Tuesday plays itself out. I don't know how long it takes for them to get approval but it doesn't have to be 3 or 6 months and anyone shorting or selling hoping to buy back would be playing with fire.
A halt would be the best F U to the manipulators.
enriquesuave wrote: Having pointed this all out I'm being realistic and hoping for 35-45% 12 and 15 months CR rate. That would be way over 30% benchmark and with a One and Done novel procedure. If it's above this number , than great, but anything significantly above the other single agents efficacy would still be excellent, and so far our numbers are beating. All IMO
enriquesuave wrote:
We must also not dismiss the fact that I believe 5 patients were wrongly dismissed from trial before there 2nd treatment early on as they were NR, but showed no progression. They had to change protocol to allow no progressions patients to stay in trial for 2nd treatment. So not only were they severely undertreated,but did not get a 2nd treatment. Still we are seeing 25% CR overall on evaluable patients at 360 and 450 days. In spite of the fact that they are counting all of these anomalies in the NR group which could have potentially added another 6-8 patients out of 20 evaluable patients 30-40% more in the CR group ( up to potential of 55-65% total maximum if all of these had been properly treated and were CR and including patient who died). All IMO please do your DD
enriquesuave wrote:
Simply not enough data at 360 days and 450 days. At both of these time intervals, we only have data on 9 patients out of 27. 4 of these 9 were from the 1st set of undertreated 12 ( but received an Optimized maintenance treatment) and the 1 patient who died from the optimized group. The next read out should show us data on 3 extra patients at 90 days, 7 at 180 days, 5 at 270 days, 2 at both 360 and 450 days
Sunvalley wrote:
With regards to the 3.7% CR at 360 days and 450 days respectively , a shareholder friend mentioned that those were not very good results for a CR after a year and thusly he is deterred from increasing his stock position. I could not argue with him and I was at a loss for a explanation as to how the Pending figure should factor into the equation. It seems that I am comfortable with the numbers in my head but I could not seem to explain it in laymans terms if you know what I mean. Does anyone have a simple way to explain this as I seem to have a mind block.?