Theralase Technologies Inc. V.TLT

I have a new rabbit hole to go down

[DJDawg]

Given the information that comes out of TLT, one sometime has to do detective work around the news releases. I have new angle to digest. Bear with me. This may not make sense but I'll try.

June 6: News release about Rutherrin destroying lung cancer. Report says that all treated mice are still alive but that that is not the case for the xray only lung cancer mice.

June 13 - first news of PP for 10m. Email from M.P. Expected to close June 21 or 28?

June 19 - news release that one mouse still alive and apparently cured based on no tumour found.

Based on the time points above the experiment with the mice above was started around May 12.

If you look at the dates of above it is an interesting sequence. Some people may have thought that the mice lung cancer study was brand new information. However, the way the information related to this push of news releases and the announcement of the results of the mice treated is such that it was timed perfectly to give two updates, all centered around the public relations push for the new offering.

The timing is quite precise. Plus only 5 mice treated in each arm. I think that that suggests that TLT has done this experiment enough times that they know the results are reproducable. And can plan on them.

Plus treating on 5 and 5 mice is a very small sample. Most dont' work that predictably so you need to do bigger sample sizes. Doing with only 5 mice in each arm is an interesting risk as that is such a small sample.

Put another way, I think that they have done the lab mice study repeatedly before and have found such reproducable very good cancer benefit that RDW and Dr. Mandel set up a small mice experiment timed so that they could spin off some real time news releases in the pump for the offering.

The takeaway from this for me is that Rutherrin is not a gimmick that has only worked in one lab trial with only 5 mice. They have done it enough times that they know how the lab results will play out and can plan around it. It also tells me that they have had repeated practice attempts on dose finding in mice lung cancer so that they are much further along then just having done it for the first time in May June.

I'm not trying to play cheerleader for TLT but I love the science and think that the timing of all this hints at some great reproducable anticancer benefit for Rutherrin in lung cancer.

[BlueFranky]

Overwhelming and predictable results on a small phase one...On a life or death cancer  For which the greatest of urgency should be afforded? Could it be that we're setting ourselves up for one remaining trial on Lung ... Much like nmibc? Cuz that's where I think we're heading!

[DJDawg]

I don't know but my hunch is that GBM is the plan for next step. GBM is rapidly fatal with limited treatment options. If you set up a phase 1a in Toronto you would have no trouble getting patients and the turnaround time to show benefit would be a few months (acceptable benefit for GBM would be a drop in size of tumour about 1 cm in diameter). That wouldn't be hard to prove if it works

[Eoganacht]

I may be wrong, but the way I read the last MD&A Theralase plans to do a single adaptive Phase Ib/II which includes both GBM and NSCLC. Once Rutherrin®’s Maximum Tolerated Dose (“MTD”) and hence Human Equivalent Dose (“HED”) limits have been determined through Good Laboratory Practices (“GLP”) toxicology studies, Theralase®, subject to the required regulatory approvals, plans

[stocksnbonds458]

DJDawg and Eoganacht, as always your insights and analysis are well regarded and appreciated. With respect to what you guys may consider "hunches" or "guesses" regarding future direction in clinical studies,  why not just call Roger and ask him? 

[Alamir1111]

Plus treating on 5 and 5 mice is a very small sample. Most dont' work that predictably so you need to do bigger sample sizes. Doing with only 5 mice in each arm is an interesting risk as that is such a small sample. I agree that is a small sample maybe enrollment slowed  down or central pathology laboratory didn't do their job properly?