The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
There was some interesting accounting for sales that resulted in a halved figure when it unravelled. They owe suppliers.
I wonder if they've been hit by deepverge and microsaic's troubles. The taint might go wider than current, they were a favourite of his.
Dox is proven, this is delivery.
More if you imagine a pipe feeding the blender and then recirculating so that they go round and round, like a circulation system. The blender isn't that efficient only blending 20% of what passes through it, there's a little pipe that slowly takes some of the mixture away and excretes it. As it circulates round and around more and more gets blended.
Note that this is a wholly made up percentage.
Theb point is that it doesn't visit the tumor once and never goes back it visits it again and again for hours and hours.
And the classic conspiracy activity of a dump of information big enough so that no one can read through it all in a reasonable amount of time. Colours have been shown and nailed to the mast, tw at it is.
We're at the level of a conspiracy theorist now with 'do your own research' and then stating it's not the right research.
You wrote 88 tweets, and flew to London where we were told nothing that wasn't in previous reports other than it's still going well, and now you've sold. I question your ability to research. There's lots of room in the market.
Ok I'll bite. Are they wholly new drugs? If so then they'll need a much longer test than just a new delivery mechanism. That's for starters. I'll have a look but that'll plus minimising the possibility of significant side effects by releasing only at the tumour site will be most of the answer I'd need.
TL one of the slides indicates what therapeutic levels are for 4 different modes of treatment, that same slide identified the amount found in tumours slide 26. So no we are not talking about minimum levels.
Failure to get approval as the approvers don't ike the trial design outweighs commerciality.
Medically you need to reach the most accurate MTD, with big gaps you'd get an inaccurate, low, figure.
DLTs stopping a trial will only ever be a good thing if the effective dose has been reached, DLTs before that kill the drug. Not reaching an MTD can't be bad once you've got the drug at levels that are useful.
Some people want quick profits and so move elsewhere at the risk of missing out on news, some are happy to wait and so don't move on and don't want the risk of missing out when news lands.
See you in 30mins
Nope Myles has tweeted today. Is this how desperate you've become Terry? Have you put your house on your short and they are coming for your kidney's? You only need one you know.
Are you running out of things to worry about?
At that point there is no SOC as they have stopped responding, so even having stopped responding it still slows things down a bit, but that's all. Where there is a SOC is would be unethical to not use it. Obvioulsy for the first Chemo drugs (for a condition) there might not have been a SOC so they may have used a placebo, or perhaps surgery was the stanard.
I have blocked him, but occassionaly look to he what he's saying.
Analysis is always based on assumptions, that's not a problem, that's just analysis, and understanding which assumptions broke once they hit reality allows you to understand if that failure is significant in the bigger picture.
If an assumption about the outcome failed that would be very different to an asumption about the timing, the end game is very sensitive to the first and quite insensitive to the latter.
There are only ever opinions on that question. mine is probably not, it might (low possiblity) come out OK, and go from strength to strength, but honestly I think that is very unlikely, I don't trust the players that are involved any more.
There was nothing wrong with it?
Ooops