Theratechnologies Inc T.TH

Alternate Symbol(s): THTX

Healthcare Biotechnology

Theratechnologies Inc. is a Canada-based clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the development and commercialization of therapies addressing unmet medical needs. It markets prescription products for people with human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) in the United States. The Company's research pipeline focuses on specialized therapies addressing unmet medical needs in HIV, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and oncology. Its medicines include Trogarzo and EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection). Trogarzo (ibalizumab-uiyk) injection is a long-acting monoclonal antibody which binds to domain 2 of the CD4 T cell receptors. It blocks viral entry into host cells while preserving normal immunologic function. The Company is also investigating an intramuscular method of administration of Trogarzo. EGRIFTA SV (tesamorelin for injection) is approved in the United States for the reduction of excess abdominal fat in people with HIV who have lipodystrophy.

TSX:TH - Post by User

Theratechnologies Inc > Waist of time and money

<< Previous

Bullboard Posts

Next >>

Comment by palinc2000on Jan 05, 2023 10:29am

121 Views

Post# 35204676

RE:RE:Waist of time and money

Qwerty I think you are right on...This MB has turned into a moaning platform because uninitiated posters have taken fantasies posted by others as facts....and interpreting the company s comments as coded terms of success ,
Nobody is happy with the SP but gees people need to look in the mirror for taking responsibility for their investment decision
What is an uninitiated person?
A person not having knowledge or experience of a particular subject or activity

qwerty22 wrote:
If you think having 3-5 tumours in one patient shrink by an average of 58% meant they'd cracked it then that's your problem not theirs. They were extremely cautious around that data. At the time I thought they were too cautious and should have made slightly bolder statements, that was just my opinion. At no point did they link what they saw to proof of concept or proof of efficacy. My memory is they called them efficacy signals, which is a reasonable description. I just re-checked there seems to be nothing in the RECIST guidelines to advise on language around one or two efficacy signals that pop up in a Ph1. What they did seems cautious and appropriate to me. I don't see where the lies are. They described each signal enough that anybody could assess the merit of each signal. In effect they left people to do just that, if we (or you) over interpreted them then that's our problem.

Momo25 wrote: I wonder why it took them 2 years and millions of dollars to finally realizing the only assets they have are the legacy drugs. Personnally, I was vocal against their oncology program because of their constant lying. They said they have seen in one cancer a tumor shrink by 58% meaning there is efficacy. If this is the case why saying in their last communication they are making pause because efficacy is not worth it.
I hope this gate approach is not a new way of spending money in programs that go nowhere. They should make the company profitable, generate enough cash then find a partner to take over. Paul Levesque and this board are definitely unfit for the job.