RE:RE:RE:RE:Sherri is Busy
NorCalTommy wrote: Hempdoc- you are an INVALUABLE contributor to this board. You're evaluations, summarizations and well versed analysis makes a huge difference in our understanding of the applications and therapy(s) that would be otherwise unintelligible for the laymen out here........ We are VERY fortunate to have you (and others i mention below) lend your background & medical expertise! a Big THANKS!
also Eogano... and Enrique..... for your contributions.....
Let me ask a quick question regarding the current status of our TLT.... is there any competitor(s) that pose a competitive risk to what we believe is a very promising future for Theralase...or is the future very bright and 'ours to lose'... if we stumble in trials and committ 'unforced errors'.... very interested in hearing your take on that ........
NorCal Tommy
Hi NorCalTommy....I appreciate that. My prior education is not necessarily specific to this field, but being able to apply both my experience & acquired knowledge from additional DD/others' posts can at least make for a good read, "sometimes"....still learning ; ).
As for TLT's potential, I believe it primarily relies on our patented library of photosensitizing compounds. Based on this unique/expansive compound IP & the progress we've made so far with our organometallic-based PDT (both pre-clinically & clinically), I'm currently not worried about the competition in the PDT field.
As for competition from other fields (immunotherapeutics, etc.), I think we have a great opportunity to challenge existing/new therapies, either as a primary treatment, adjuvant treatment, neoadjuvant treatment, or more likely, as all of the above...of course this will depend on the cancer type/stage. While immunotherapy (IT) has been a great addition to cancer care, I believe any "individual" immunotherapeutic will generally be limited or less efficacious in its use as a form of "monotherapy" (based on mechanism of action & few other details). In order to improve cancer care, I think you will continue to see our chemo & IT competition increasingly rely more on "combination" chemo & "combination" IT, or IT + chemo, etc. The potential of using our PDT as "monotherapy" for multiple indications (vs being a part of combination therapy or polytherapy) is realistic (based on mechanism of action)....& if proven, this should separate us significantly from much of the competition...for this indication & likely others in the near future. The future seems very bright.
As for trial errors, they are an unfortunate & sometimes avoidable side effect of drug development. An experienced MSAB should generally minimize this risk. I think they got the message & we should be operating with significantly reduced risk moving forward....while I currently knock on my wooden leg ; ).
All of the above is JMO. Good luck...