RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Investor Presentation [12-2024]Thanks for illustrating my point. You have no idea what I think about the money raises. You announce what my position "must be", and then you call me presumptuous for holding a position I have never held
You do this kind of thing all the time. You presume to know what you don't know and then yoiu pontificate about your shallow understanding.
N0taP00p wrote: Oh the irony. You must be one of many bright bulbs that said we don't need any more money, a long time ago. Presumptuous, no? Like many other investors here with sizable holdings over a dozen years, just tempering the adulation and justificatin that follows every delay and dilution from the usual 3 to 4 suspects. Vindictive to call that bashing, no? Now, tell us why this time you're confident. Go on.
gebremeskel wrote: Quite. Easier yet to eke out your days as a presumptuous, vindictive twerp.
N0taP00p wrote: Must be hard, living in a world of bashers versus believers. Have you gone back in time and checked how many times this company has met anticipated timelines over the last 10 years? Give it a try. Publish the data here. For each push, note down the reason for the delay as it was understood at that point in time. Then tell us why you're confident that THIS time, it'll be different. I'll be a blind follower If any of you do. But then, it's just so much easier to live in a bubble.
StevenBirch wrote: A lot of this discussion depends on one's investment timelines. For instance some want the one big spike, like a $30/$50/$100 buyout, before selling any and some like me are content with the first pop to $3-$5 and then letting everything else develop for the ultimate payday.
So the bashers use full approval in 26/27 as a negative when there are other ways for the stock to appreciate in the meantime. When MP said BTD wasn't the be all end all it sort of fed these bashers but in fact it would be a major boost to their financing prospects in the short term.
The bashers have their motive for stoking fear, whatever it may be, but I don't care.
enriquesuave wrote: Nobody yet knows what the FDA is lookifor here. No matter what they have to complete trial and get as many sites needed to do so. If Accelerated FDA approval is granted , they will still need to complete trial for full approval as well as do a confirmatory trial. As per FDA guidelines completion of trial ( extra 25 or so patients) can sometimes serve as a confirmatory trial if I remember correctly. So full approval should be 2026/2027 however AA can come before. IMHO
TommyNickels wrote: Clearly the FDA wants the study completed. They haven't recruited 4 new sites for no reason. Roger likely was gambling that 75 would be good enough. As wr have been saying, Theralase is not sufficiently bankrolled. 4 new sites and no money for new patients.
They have to get the money and then recruit the patients. Will 25 more patients be completed by end of Q2? Doubtful, hence the 2027 deadline.
If you are lucky, the next 25 are treated by the end of Q3 / early Q4.