RE:RE:RE:Sermonizer VS Whinersssssssssssssssssssss I still see the hole in the clinical data but it's much clear what's behind at least some of the poor sentiment.
I can't help thinking if Intercept had got the nod from the FDA things might be different. Risk-adversity has to be uppermost in an indication with so many high profile failures. Non cookie-cutter programs are never going to look attractive in that atmosphere. I agree with SPCEO that the management have done exceptionally well to get close to a Ph3 but some externals within the NASH space haven't played out all that well given some aspects of THTX's program.
palinc2000 wrote: It appears that you are now seeing the gaping hole much smaller ....If this is the case good for you...,,,,, we are going to see updates from Mackie increasing the odds from 10 % to 20% then t0 40% etc and the TP will be upgraded ....TH share price stands a chance to appreciate even faster than I anticipate
qwerty22 wrote: Now that we have Mackie's working out I also feel much better. If this is what is required to justify the present SP/financing price then we are in safe hands that there is real value locked in this program. I don't think there is any way a 10% likelihood of success LOA represents the true situation for this program.
In effect the financing was done based on a zero chance of success in both indications as SPCEO has been saying all along, that in effect is what his report says, it can't be what he believes otherwise he simply wouldn't believe in the biotech process. That he now gives a 10% chance of success is a number picked out of thin air to justify a price target. This is analysis done backwards, start with a price target and then uncover a LOA number that justifies that target, he's come up with an indefensible one in my view. He probably could have put a LOA at 80% and have been equally wrong (but to the high side). In my view the LOA is somewhere between 30 to 60%. If you took a data based approach and heavily weighed for the lack of biopsy data (and heavily under-weighed all the other data) you might say they where early/mid Ph2, if you go with the actual regulatory discussion then they are close to start of Ph3. You just can't say they are start of Ph1 that makes no sense and is the only justification for a 10% LOA, you'd need to ignore so much (safety, liver fat busting, dose, MOA etc) to say they were start of Ph2 even, that might put the LOA at 20%. It has to be higher than both those.
In a perverse way we all should be more re-assured by this Mackie report, he's basically trying to rationalize the markets present view of this program and failing. The only way is up (until it isn't).
palinc2000 wrote: but at least we now know that if phase 3 trials are successful in Nash and oncology the SP will go to the moon,
I feel much better now,,,,
Disclosure
I am long this stock and have no relation whatsoever with anyone working at TH past or present