RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:To better understand the complexity of ADCsThe CEO did not hand picked the BOD members,,,Still has to deal with 2 of the former CEO s friends and I would be surprised if he had any input in the nomination of Molson ,,,whom I see as someone who brings very little ,,,
The CEO is the leader and may need to pound the table with the BOD and also by now he should be in a position to evaluate the rest of the team and act accordingly,,,,,of course Montreal has been in some form of lockdown ever since he joined ....not easy to make management change during a lockdown
scarlet1967 wrote: The CEO is great at marketing, I enjoyed listening to him every single time when he presented company's prospects, he was the guy who said "Tesamorelin can be the first drug to be approved for NASH" he was the guy who said they are many catalyst in new future "dosing
first patient, early readouts" he was the guy who claimed they have two promising drugs from the very beginning and there is room for accelerated sales and as per last quarter "they had record sales of legacy drugs". The projected sale growth is a projection not speculation, would you as an investor be happier to hear their projection ambitious or not rather than not hearing it?
As per deal let's not forget Paul was hired last year and started working in a company with a conservative board full of dinosaurs, he is a one man army who needs to change the culture of this company.
My take is the deal was done by a conservative company not CEO who has no appetite for risk but unfortunately the way the market look at it is what you suggested and this is again my problem, they should have a contingency plan prepared in advance to do some damage control so those uninformed investors wouldn't rush to hit the exit door for a little profit with their shares and warrants.
When you run a business even if the leader is great while the rest of the team are underperforming constantly the only answer is to replace them, because if not as a leader you get constantly frustrating reports of all the wrongs .
The Spartrap's finding was emailed to the company.
qwerty22 wrote: What was the point of talking about the CEO's skill set when he delivered us such an ugly deal? What was the point of find comparable when the company was prepared to accept their R&D was worthless? What's the point of forward looking financial statements like 25% YoY growth when it's based on a bunch of assumptions and can evaporate in an instant.. What's the point of any forward looking investigation into any aspect of the company? It's all speculative.
The most interesting science of the past few days was Startrap's find of the Swedish groups work, that is POTENTIALLY material if Theratech pursue a similar route. They are advertising for a research job to study sortilin.
https://web103.reachmee.com/ext/I005/1035/job?site=7&lang=UK&validator=9b89bead79bb7258ad55c8d75228e5b7&job_id=18842
"The long term scientific goal within this project is to identify and develop novel breast cancer therapies ........... Initially there will be a focus on the protein sortilin and how the various protein functions influences cancer progression and consequently can be blocked by drug development strategies."
Also just to go back to pancreases for a moment. People may have seen the recent paper about pancreatic cancer and sortilin. This following article links to it but also has some further quotes from the authors that I thought are interesting. If you want a sketch of why pancreatic cancer is so bad, the drug landscape and how a Sortilin drug might fit then it's worth a read.
https://www.genengnews.com/news/pancreatic-cancer-therapy-may-be-improved-by-targeting-neuroprotein-sortilin/
palinc2000 wrote: I get everything you say in paragraph 3 ..We have known that for quite a while ,,,We are all hoping it works on human given that the dose can be multiplkied by x factor with low toxivcity ,,,,But what is the purpose of talking about the molecuklar structure or whatever,,,,Thus is not a scientific forum where PHD s argue and argue over such things
This is how I feel and am guessing the silent majority feels the same,
I love Scarlett business approach with a mixture of researvch that even I can understand
Wino115 wrote: You can skip them. It all came about from the Barclays Capital model on Trodelvy. Since it's selling into a similar market as TH1902 would if successful in trials, we can think of that as an attainable revenue stream for THTX. Knowing what they got in their Phase 2 and 3 trial, we can understand what would be needed for Accelerated Approval.
Given there the drug was effective, but still have modest adverse events, it stands to reason if you can have those same results but none of the adverse events (which is what SORT1+ pitches), you'd have a pretty competitive product out there. So as few guys started comparing the ADC models to the PDCs to see where the advantages and disadvantages lie. I think we understand them more.
From this discussion it seems to me that if TH1902 works, you should see much less side effects, a higher dosage getting in to the actual tumor and a much longer treatment window. If that's the case, you may not see higher response rates, but you should see better SAE numbers and if you correlate more toxin for longer = more tumor killing capacity, much more shrinkage of mass and hopefully longer survival. Just some handicapping going on with the info.
palinc2000 wrote: Excuse my ignorance but it seems to me that since TH has already committed to and received a may proceed letter from Fda that the rehashing of ADC vs PDC and most of the other scientific stuff adds nothing to the investment thesis ,Unfortunately or fortunately the decision to go ahead with the peptide has been vetted by the scientific team ,consuktants and the CMO at TH.I dont see how all this research and eloquent scientific terms proves anything other than some here have a scientific background
Let Phase 1 run its course and then discuss the results but the rest is hogwash imo