RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Examples of efficacy from dose escalation studies I think you are trying to strain out a knat here. I agree that Paul has never said the phase 1 will be successful. But he sure has made many comments that raised expectations regarding TH-1902 generally. And I do think at this point that the company has sufficient information to know quite a bit about how the trial is going. As Wino showed wit Prelude, other companies do share information about dose escalation studies prior to the trial being completed.
So, I do think Paul's credibility is on the line as he has made many effusive statements about cancer and raised expectations of a good trial result, even though he has not given us any trial related data to support those statements. As Qwerty says, that is what CEO's do in situations like this. But given that they do know a lot about how this trial will shape up already, if those statements end up being over-the-top given the results, then his repuation will necessarily suffer. I hope that is not the case as I want those results to live up to those expectations his words have built, but if the phase 1a is a flop, it is not a positive for Paul. As Wino suggests, however, there is almost certainly going to be some path forward no matter what those actual results show. So, being a good salesman, I am sure he will limit any reputational damage from whatever the data show by refcusing investors on whatever the post data reality will be.
palinc2000 wrote: There has not been a single quote from Paul in which he hints that the Phase 1 will be successful.This small trial the first using Thera s PDC in humans is ongoing ,,Even though it is an open label trial I dont think Paul can determine the outcome be it negative or positive. He might feel optimistic and he should ,,otherwise why undertake a Clinical Trial if you dont think it has a chance of success even if the odds of non success are high....We need to let this pay out and making claims that Paul s credibility will suffer if patients in the trial dont react like the rats did in the pre clinical is ludicrous
qwerty22 wrote: I'm not sure it's a question of him being truthful or not. Everything Paul is doing is normal. He has to believe in the tech and when he's talking about the potential inevitably he's going to focus on the positives. When he's projecting forward he has to talk about the many places the program might go. I think it's also totally normal not to talk about what's happening in the present with the patients. Also he has never over-sold what this first small trial can achieve. I think some of us (including me) may have got our expectations up too much. I definitely think Wino is expressing the right balanced approach atm.
If the data disappoints it's not going to be because Paul lied, it'll be because one of a dozen things that happened in the lab or in mice couldn't be reproduced in humans. I'm not expecting that, I'm expecting PoC, I'm hoping the data can deliver PoC and a bit more. We will see.
SPCEO1 wrote: Below is a more comprehensive quote from my post which I believe better characterizes what I was saying than just the portion you quoted. Do you think that the way Paul has characterized the cancer phase 1a so far can't be described as optimistic? Granted he has given us no actual data on the phase 1a but he has clearly built expectations of a positive result with pretty effusive comments. Here is what I posted earlier: Let's hope they do better this time around, regain their credibility and move onto many bigger and better things. If they have nothing in cancer to "tout" as Paul said yesterday, then Paul's credibility is going to fall another few notches lower since he has been consistently very positive in the way he has generally characterized the cancer phase 1a trial. Hopefully, the specific data coming from the trial, whenever they get around to telling us more, will back up those favorable comments. On the issue of what data they may already have, if there was a response when they were doling out lower doses to the patients, as the pre-clinical work suggested there would be, they would already know that. One issue, however, is did those earlier patients who were treated with lower doses survive long enough to have enough treatments to show an effect. My sense at the cancer KOL was that they had already begun to see some efficacy signals and the talk about wanting to rpove such things up in the right way also indicates they have seen something. Or they are just speking in an optimisitc manner that intentionally is creating a perception of success in the trial when no success has yet been seen? While they have shown a willingness to distort the truth in the past, I am hoping they learned from those mistakes.
palinc2000 wrote: Spceo wrote
" Or they are just speking in an optimisitc manner that intentionally is creating a perception of success in the trial when no success has yet been seen? While they have shown a willingness to distort the truth in the past, I am hoping they learned from those mistakes. "
I must have missed the optimism about clinical results in Oncology.All I heard is optimism on the potential of the Platform in treating cancer IF clinical results are similar to pre clinical results....