RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Forgot Sakai Look they have a viable business to protect, it might not be an exciting investment opportunity but it's viable. They can't go gung-ho over cancer when it's high risk and extremely uncertain atm and completely destroy their reputation. ATM all that is happening is timelines are slipping, name me a biotech that has never happened to. That hugely frustrating for us but not a sin you should be crushed for.
I think we have to get more grounded about the 1b. 70 patients is a good number, especially for safety, but it's 10 patients for each cancer type and that is a bare minimum. A realistic outcome, which would still be positive, is one cancer type gets across the line (let's say with 3 responders) and maybe they get a responder here and there in the other cancers. That would be viable going forward. But that would be an oasis of positivity in a desert of negative outcomes in terms of what emerges from the 1b data. The idea that that oasis will come into view 1/3 or 1/2 way thru the 1b is optimistic. We could imagine this drug is a mega over-performers and responders are popping up all over the place and we would expect they could say something positive half way thru the trial but how likely is that.
I think Paul has been the optimistic, best case scenario guy at times, and he's getting criticized for that now that has failed to materialize. Christian is the realist in suggesting we need to get all 10 patients enrolled in any cancer type to get a more clear picture to emerge.
I think what's likely 1/3 or 1/2 the way thru the 1b is a dataset that looks like a slightly larger 1a with not much more clarity about the path forward. It could be a lot of negative and a little positive which might not be all that well understood as shining a light on the path forward. The chances are we do need to wait for 1b to deliver all it's data to get a clear picture of the road ahead.
realitycheck4u wrote: I will say it differently.It will be a shame if they come out with good news because the stock market reaction will be a fraction of what they would have seen had IR been good at their Job of building momentum. They are waiting for results versus preparing the market for them.
ANALIAS00 wrote: It is sad to say they will prove their poor communication strategy if they come out with good news. Because the way they act can only be justify by result not being what they were expecting.
PWIB123 wrote: I guess you could look at that several ways, but obviously invstors wanted more and weren't given those details. The success of the lawsuit's defense seems to have emboldened THTX to stick to their history of providing less communication. I would've agreed with the courts on this one. I think they made the right call, but that doesn't mean THTX is doing the right thing in how they communicate with investors.
Lee430 wrote: Perhaps this is the reason for their ultra conservative PR stance.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/top-court-tosses-suit-against-theratechnologies/article24004231/
Joemare wrote: I think it's fine to voice your opinion. Not sure how busy she is. Very quiet on linked-in and twitter.....