palinc2000 wrote: Qwerty I really appreciate your measured ,tempered take ,,,Your posts on the science do not sound like pronouncements like others ,,,,,,,,,,, I think your posts accurately reflect the risks involved in the oncology platform,,,and that lack of toxicity is not a guarantee for efficacy,,,Its a necessary pre requisite but not a predictor of final results in humans,,,I dont think the market lack of giving much weight to the platform has anything to do with credibility of management ,,,,it is mostly related to the market not having strong belief in the science ,,,,,The market is not always right and for sure it would be nice if it were proven wrong in this case ,,,,,It would be nice if an independant KOL or an analyst involved in oncology issued a positive report on the platform ,,,,,, but this has not yet happened,,,,
qwerty22 wrote: ... or if it's not bypassing resistance so chemo resistant cells are pumping the drug out as fast as Sortilin is moving it in.
.... or if the docetaxel is not efficiently being released from the PDC inside the cell so it doesn't become active.
.... or if the PDC is not able to get to the cells in the first place, that's to say it doesn't efficiently penetrate the tumour.
All the things they highlight about the drug need to work to some extent to get the final effect. Some of these things have been better "derisked" in the preclinical work than others.
jfm1330 wrote: The only explaination would be that docetaxel is not efficacious against certain type of cancers, but it is hard to imagine it would not work against every cancers. That's why the scientific logic leads to think that if the MTD is high, efficacy should be there.
stockman75 wrote:
Jfm thanks for this great information/analysis. From a scientific perspective how would you explain a scenario where they have such large MTD dosage and NOT have very good efficacy (for sortllin expressing cancers)? Thanks