RE:RE:TLT Conclusion - On a good track...riverrrow wrote: As usual the data appears muddled. Personally I can't make heads or tails of it. GLTA.
And I believe that is the main reason for the market reaction. First off there are those that had visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads and the news today does not confirm the sugar plums.
The data is not presented in an easy way for novices to understand and I have to believe the shareholder base includes a large number of novices.
From my own perspective a couple of points I find confusing. They start off by defining Study II as being 35 patients but then roll 3 patients from Study 1 in and then go on to refer to 38 patients in Study II. I also believe, but am not sure, that the one adverse event at Grade 5 (Death) is from Study 1 - but that is just going by memory.
The chart then goes on to refer to all patients on a percentage basis but does not clearly define the 'number' of patients that have actually achieved each base point. i.e. of the 38 (or 35) how many have achieved the 450 days, the 360, 270, and 180 days? As novices many of us cannot really say based on the makeup of the data -- i.e. confusion. And in my mind adding the 3 additional patients in from Phase 1B just adds a little more confusion to the overall.
To top that off the first 12 of the 35 in Phase II did not receive the "optimized" treatment intially.
The body of the statement gives the numbers of the patients as follows:
"The Study II optimized treatment patients, who received either an optimized primary study treatment or optimized maintenance study treatment consisted of: 23 patients at 90 days, 26 patients at 180 days and 27 patients at each of 270, 360 and 450 days."
The charts themselves under column one (Assessment) do not define how many patients fall into each category of days. To me it "appears" from the above data that 27 patients ( 3 from Phase1, 12 from the less than optimized group, and 12 from the optimized group) make up the data on the bottom 3 lines of the chart -- but from a novice like me I am just essentially guessing at that because I am confused. The first chart does not have a date on it. The second chart says "Post August 1, 2020") which, to me, again adds confusion.
I would say from my perspective that the inability of a very large number of investors to be able to read and understand the data, results in the intial market response that we have seen. I could be completely off base so offer apologies if I am. Also, the fact that there is one Grade 5 cited as part of the data does give a negative tone, and it may be a bit misunderstood as to the source, but it has an impact.
All in my humble opinion.
Patients #13 through #35 (23 in number) in Phase II are the highlights that will set the tone if we can filter them out but the "Study" must lump all data together. (38 patients thus far - 3 Phase 1b, 12 Phase 2 - less than optimized, 23 Phase 2 - optimized). ??