RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Comparing Corporate Presentations My recollection on Spartrap was he equated the neuropathy at the 420mg level to potential safety issues and potential for higher off-target accumulations of toxins. Since then, they moved it down, the RP2D had no FDA-reportable SAEs that were significant (other than the normal oncology ones of nausea, ocular, fatigue, etc..) and we now know one patient took it for 33 weeks and didn't have a side effect that stopped it, but rather chose to move on voluntarily. I think he mentioned he would reassess after more substantial data and felt (correctly) he could sell in the 3's and likely buy it back if he wanted to at that or lower in the next year.
BTW, Bucknelly I don't view that our intervention last year was useless. They did hire LSA and massively improved how they spoke about their science and the opportunity. But I would agree they could have done some of the other things way better, like the new Board seat for Cap Mkts and overall way better IR efforts. I've made many suggestions here and to them on how they should develop a far more convincing investment thesis and what elements are necessary. Yet, convincing science is the only way to start that and we are beginning to see hints of that, so I am withholding my judgement on that. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the TH1902 PR which was supposedly pushed by Dr Rothemburg was very reminiscent of the "fake" one I wrote a month prior and was shown by someone to Dubuc as a good example of how to get the most from your science in terms that resonate with sophisticated investors. Baby steps, I agree, but we just have to wait for the science around TH1902 to support a thesis and see some actual oncology analysts write about it.
PWIB123 wrote: I remember reading Spartrap's last post. I'm sure he lost faith in the C-Suite too, but if I recall correctly, he specifically decided he didn't believe the science would prove the thesis. One thing I will say about him, his decision was final and he never posted again after selling all his shares. I wonder what he would think about the science today, and if he'll come back if the science starts to show further evidence?
Bucknelly21 wrote: Spartrap on stocktwits who was a very well spoken poster believed too... after watching the company make mistake after mistake he decided it wasnt worth it. Disappointing to see that but that is exactly my issue. Rather than building a solid following the company's actions actually turn people off completely. The science is what it is at this point and ill hang in there but do you really want this particular c suite being the ones managing your home run if christian gets it there? If so id love to know why...