RE:RE:RE:Dr. Mace Rothenberg, MD i wouldn't say zero data on efficacy. A lot of the pre clinical data is helpful, even if in non human hosts. I am fully on board with the fact we have no human data at all around efficacy and the pre clinical needs to be validated. So I don't disagree with you Palinc. I've always been in the hard data in humans camp for our valuation step function jump.
I would just revert back to my other post that we are now seeing an almost deadly amount of docetaxol being injected in to patients now, or at least a dose that in humans should cause all sorts of alarms to go off. We have data that no alarms are going off yet, just one SAE grade 2. We should probably be seeing the terrible SAE 5 at 2x dose level. So taxol is going somewhere "safe" and nor floating and harming organs.
The second data point would be in human xenographs of tumor cells, the peptide did internalize and release and shrink human tumor cells grafted to mice and rats. This could justify Sortilin targeting working, Sortilin internalization working on a human cell, and taxol doing its thin in the human tumor cell. We still need to see all this in human tumors in humans. But we could say what they saw pre clinical conforms to why they haven't killed anyone yet with that massive toxic chemo bombshell floating around. If we don't believe in efficacy we need to explain why the peptide didn't target right, why Sortilin didn't overexpression or was a valid target, why the linker failed, why taxol failed, and where the taxol went.
I think we've concluded it could be a case of it rapidly being flushed down the toilet or it just hanging around the receptor and not getting chemo in effectively. So if that happened, it is not what was seen in the human xenographs and it would mean their statement (data) that "...what we are seeing is similar to the pre clinical work..." would be highly misleading. In fact,mit would be criminally misleading for them to say that if either of our negative scenarios above were in fact the explanation.
So in a way, putting all those pieces together and ruling out explanations that don't conform to their statement that it's similar to preclinical is the biggest hint.
palinc2000 wrote:
We have zero scientific data on Efficacy but we now have 4 fantastic hints
1- The smiling KOL s during the Kol Event
2- Some kind of a retainer paid to a retired doctor with a great track record
3- Chinese sniffing around
4/ Paul is extremely excited on Phase 1
Did I miss anything on Efficacy?
I wish
SPCEO1 wrote: Glad to see you back! I hope your health is not causing you any problems.
I think the hiring of him at this time is likely the biggest hint we have yet that good thigs are happening on the TH-1902 front. THTX already knows enough from the phase 1a trial to not bring him on if it was going to be a dud. While we may still not see any signs of efficacy in phase 1a, THTX likely knows the chances of seeing that in phase 1b are pretty good as they would not bring him on if they already knew the cancer program was going nowhere.
While the analysts have not yet figured out that something positive is likely happening with TH-1902, the addition of Dr. Rothenberg and the Chinese sniffing around THTX looking for a partnership deal are indications the industry has started to figure it out.
jfm1330 wrote: Oncology is going so bad that they just hired an expert advisor...
https://www.theratech.com/about/scientific-consultants-and-advisors