Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
again just working with VAL RNS........... and Posters that feel somehow empowered to work out why VAL has not carried on with the trial ... despite the RNS saying "they need to"
Stop embarrassing yourself now - your coming across a bit desperate
so basically what you are being told now .......... is Not .. new
Released 07:00:04 28 November 2019
so since Nov of last year can any one tell me what happened ?
and can any one explain ........... "defined reason"
AZN mentions patent
"""The trial of VAL201 has met its endpoints very well and the Company is now able to use the peptide in demonstrating the efficacy of the compound as a therapeutic product, addressing what is currently a poorly-served, yet very substantial commercial market.""
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/VAL/us-patent-grant-re-val201-metastatic-cancer/14326288?lang=en
ffs this year is going quickly, March already :)
Grace
as i have just explained ........... VAL itself is not capable of taking this forward .... which AZN has just stated
so without a JV ........ it all stops here ..
ATB
You ask about performing further Phase 1 studies with shareholder money, maybe to generate further data. Drilling down to those with specific forms of this disease, along with higher challenge doses, as you know, can easily be done during the Phase2b study. Why didn’t VAL do it now? Because they want to crack on, maximise the patent, and not delay the expansion of the dataset properly, which will require external investment. Furthermore, they know all too well that they’d like to examine the utility of VAL201 in other therapy areas – e.g. breast, uterine, and ovarian tumors. VAL could fiddle about with this ad infinitum to satisfy the desire to know what happens at 16mg/kg, for example, but they don’t need to yet. They want to write up what they have, find a partner
inanaco probably works on the tills at boots and thinks he’s Charles Darwin - give it a rest mate!!
What happened to coming back in march lol .
I’m laughing here. I really can’t wait to see how inanaco is going to form a counterargument against AstraZeneca’s finest. Lol
Bitten off more than you can chew, comes to mind...
That’s what I was going to say !! You beat me to that Adam :)
you don't have to convince me chap or other posters
its Big Pharma ......... and they are serious "sherlocks" ...
if you feel the data will satisfy them ........ you have made it ...
Inanaco,
The primary objective of this Phase 1/2a study has encompassed an examination of the tolerability and safety of VAL201. I think we can agree that this has been a resounding success. Another objective was to garner early indications of efficacy. Although we await a thorough breakdown for this, the compound was dosed across a range of heterogeneous (in the genetic sense) range of tumors, in patients with both local and metastatic disease, and in patients both sensitive and refractory to previous medication. We know that, in over half of these patients, they responded to treatment. Now, VAL could have chosen to carefully select patients, co-administer adjuvant therapies (e.g. MRx0518; 4D, SCIB2, Scancell), or indeed surgically retract the primary tumors before therapy first (e.g. SCIB1; Scancell). Let’s say for argument that this approach resulted in a positive response of 85%. Nice RNS, lower utility; fewer patients potentially helped. My reasoning is that VAL saw this as a first-in-class drug to be used across a relatively “broad-brush”, a bit like good old anti-testosterones.
You make an excellent point about a subsequent Phase 3 study. I’m so glad that you mentioned that. As a measure of clinical “utility”, the trade-off will be efficacy versus safety. By this stage, the patient selection criteria will probably have been narrowed, and the dose will have been fully optimised. Will it work as well or even better than the current Standard of Care? Maybe; maybe not. Will it have fewer side effects?; most probably. We know VAL201 would likely to score incredibly highly in the safety stakes. Will it be the next “statin” for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia? Who knows?; this is where we can all postulate, but this is where we go.
You ask about performing further Phase 1 studies with shareholder money, maybe to generate further data. Drilling down to those with specific forms of this disease, along with higher challenge doses, as you know, can easily be done during the Phase2b study. Why didn’t VAL do it now? Because they want to crack on, maximise the patent, and not delay the expansion of the dataset properly, which will require external investment. Furthermore, they know all too well that they’d like to examine the utility of VAL201 in other therapy areas – e.g. breast, uterine, and ovarian tumors. VAL could fiddle about with this ad infinitum to satisfy the desire to know what happens at 16mg/kg, for example, but they don’t need to yet. They want to write up what they have, find a partner, save you as a shareholder – cough – money, and crack on.
I think that this has encapsulated your questions, and is all I can add, but, as I said yesterday, the QandA is open for questions. If you’ve determined any perceived serious flaws in the study design, or RNS release, and don’t use this channel to have it addressed, I think that would be what the kids call "trolling". Have a good day pal.
the special relationship between the "Original Yoda" ........ and myself
I assume you missed the 2014 discussions on Fast and speedy trials ...
if you don't hold shares why are you posting so much?
you clearly don't like the results, so why hang around?
Innaco
It's not March!
one last point
Of the 12 patients dosed with VAL201, 11 patients had sufficient PCWG2-relevant data collected across multiple cycles. 6 of these 11 have been categorised as responding throughout treatment. That is, when the treatment with VAL201 was halted for a defined reason, whether or not the 6 standard cycles had been completed, these patients showed no disease progression by PCWG2 criteria with stable disease.
what was the "defined reason"
"""That is, when the treatment with VAL201 was halted for a defined reason, whether or not the 6 standard cycles had been completed,""
in other words a stop on treatments including patients in that 6 standard cycles ?
Grace
""" Dose Finding Safety Study of VAL201 in Cancer Patients (VAL201-001)"""
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02280317
result
Nevertheless, the headline results clearly demonstrate that VAL201 has the potential to be a safe and well-tolerated drug. With this data in hand, future studies will investigate optimal dosing strategies for VAL201 and help confirm these early indications of a positive response rate."
sounds very similar ...
ATB
Not personal at all. Just pointing out a few things. See you over on the other bb :)
Ok Innaco
Enough de-ramping.
Come back in March
Grace ... you are taking it a bit to personal
lets see what happens
Talk again next March .. and review SP and JV
A discussion isn’t ignoring what the other person says. I addressed his points, but he ignored mine and made some more stuff up. Didn’t address my points at all
Nom - dont be a jerk. Of course non holders are welcome, just dont need them coming here, making things up and lying ...
All explained by the CEO . Trust in what management say or not your decision ! Your money to invest or not your choice really quite simple .
https://www.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcasts/5f734f8dc4d0076f2b939412/valirx-val201-clinical-trial-update
https://www.valirx.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/VAL-September-Answers-final.pdf
think you are rather missing the point.
non shareholder posting - perfectly OK
non shareholder constantly posting demonstrably ludicrous negative **** - not OK
also, shareholder constantly posting ramping b*ll*x like st tropez last week - not OK
is that clearer?
Another untrue post nomlungu. Even you can see that I tried to discuss, yet he chose not to