No he doesn’t. Also he’s underwater with SCLP, which is why he’s spouting nonsense to get people to go over there. Claims to want to discuss, yet ignores any points I make, then comes up with made up scenarios that Suzy has already addressed...as she said in the Q+A that we will progress, not go back. No winning against someone who is blithely making things up, by still talking about it a phase 1 approach, as reason isn’t considered in making things up there.
Also, if anyone listens to the ridiculous statement that ValiRx should have released full results and not headline, then sells on that...they deserve to lose their money, as clearly have no understanding of how pharmas work and report results on AIM.
Sorry Baxters...I can’t help it and I can’t leave these inaccurate statements on the bb. Inanaco knows they’re untrue, as his scientific knowledge is excellent, but he knows not everyone else’s is.
Right inanaco...
Without looking back at your posting history, didn’t you try to imply that the endpoints haven’t been reached? Therefore phase 1 would have to be repeated. When that was shot down, due to it being ridiculous, you’re now trying to say that a small trial would have to be carried out before the 2b. We both know that’s not true. As your conversation with Adam Pointed out yesterday, it’s largely a non issue, as the 8mg/kg works well. If it were to be further investigated ( maybe there’s no need, as we have possibly reached saturation point for efficacy) then we both know that it could be done simply by adding another cohort to the 2b trial. As you have acknowledged yourself....it works pretty damn well at 8, so great for us.
What’s your agenda? I believe it’s to coax to people sell here and go to SCLP.
Great, measured posts this evening, thanks all :)
Lifesagame- thanks! Ten years all clear now, thankfully :)
SG, excellent points as usual. It’s so hard in pharma to figure out exactly what is going on at times. Especially if it’s not someone’s area of expertise. Diurnal got FDA approval today, which will bring in millions in actual revenue imminently, yet they finished lower. Strange week in pharma and on AIM in general. I can see why these types of events would make people look to others, but it is definitely a good rule to stick to, to avoid The opinions of obvious big rampers or derampers.
Adam, thanks, but you are being kind. You summed it up perfectly yesterday when replying that cortisol is the reason the sp dropped. I chuckled for a solid ten minutes. So...are you of the same opinion that the only participants that could have achieved stable disease under PCWG2 are numbers 8, 11 and the four from the extended trial? I can’t wait to see the data. Which means 8mg/kg is effectively currently our MTD...although a cohort with higher dosage can easily be added to the 2b...? (People trying to state that the endpoints haven’t been achieved due to this are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to prey on weakness here everyone. We are certainly not back to square one by any means and why would the next trial take years to complete, just because this one did under the old management...think about it everyone...low tactics employed in that particular attempt. I want it to be known that I have huge respect for that particular poster on his own board, by the way).
Robyems, if you’re reading, then I’m so sorry that you pressed the wrong button and ended up doubling up instead of selling everything. If it’s any consolation, I personally think you’ll be ok. I must admit, I did have a little giggle...maybe it was divine intervention?
I’m happy to discuss the science with anyone and will genuinely give my honest opinion, as if you look back at my posting history, I don’t think this company is perfect by any means and don’t have the same positive opinion on The effocacy of 401 as lots of others (Although I would be more than happy to be proved wrong on this front). But that’s the beauty of everyone having an opinion and being able to debate rationally.
Oh and Nelsonthedog - Adam replied just as I was typing my response that yes, any cancer that is driven by male and female hormones :) I didn’t post as he had already covered it.
Thanks bankfool. It’s just been so crazy as I know a lot of the posters who were capitalising in the uncertainty, that were from other boards. One in particular has excellent scientific knowledge and purposely pinpointed any areas of weakness to elaborate upon and spread false information. There are loads of other things that have popped up, but it’s a lot to address them all, also some have already been addressed by Suzy and others here.
Crazy how there was a mass frenzy upon good news...think people thought that it was just a repeat of what happened under old management, which is understandable.
In order to address a few of the issues that have arisen, I thought I’d post something, now it’s a bit quieter. Firstly, the RNS wasn’t as concise and detailed as some had hoped for, which allowed a hoard of people to come and place doubt in people’s minds. Now, I’m not saying that this drug is going to come to fruition at all (I’ll leave my own opinion out of this, as much as I am able to) but i would just like to point out a few of the areas of weakness that have been preyed upon here recently.
1) The sample size is statistically significant. If you don’t believe me, ask mathsprof. Why would pharmas bother spending millions on a trial for it not to be statistically significant. Think about it. The absence of a p value is also a non issue...look at the DDDD results...no p value there.
2) Yes there has been the development of PARP inhibitors (such as olaparib) during the development time of this drug so far. They produce a lot of very nasty side effects indeed. 201 doesn’t even register on the scale for the list of side effects published, they are actually very mild. Trust me, I’ve been through chemotherapy.
3) 54% success rate is good. We couldn’t have achieved much higher, due to the design of the trial. We incorporated too many low doses of the compound, along with two different subtypes of disease (castration resistant and sensitive). If the design had been more targeted then we could achieve a higher percentage, which is what will be done in a follow up phase two trial. Pharmas will be looking at the details in the results, not the overall percentage, so to be honest, we don’t really know exactly how well 201 has actually performed yet. The devil will be in the detail. To translate, this is what Adam is referring to when he’s speaking about the heterogeneity of the participant subtypes (the fact that we have incorporated castration sensitive and resistant...this is exactly why I’ve been telling everyone to focus on the patterns of these individually, as separate entities in the early data for months).
4)PCWG2 criteria is very strict and difficult to achieve for stable disease, so to satisfy this criteria, 201 must have performed well. I was initially a little disappointed at no mention of partial reductions, but as the headline results referred only to the PCWG2 criteria, then this doesn’t cover this area, as will only go as far as saying stable disease at this moment in time. We will know further detail only upon the full results. So the basic upshot is that we don’t know the exact performance yet.
There are other points, but this is already a bit of an essay. I’ll add them to this thread.
Adam, if you’re reading this, I don’t profess to be in the same league as you at all, but would you humour me and discuss the results with me please? :)
Thoth2
Apologies for my tone this morning. I think I read one incorrect post too many and snapped... I can see that you’re genuine. I’m busy this morning but will write a post later addressing the points. I too, don’t want to see people losing out here. Unfortunately, neither of us have control over that. I can only point out what I understand about the science.
Hope you’re well
Grace
Hi SG
Yes, we do need to expand upon the phase 2, as this was a phase 1/2a trial. If it helps, I’m pretty sure I’ve discussed the merits of completing a phase 1/2a to then expand from in some of my previous posts. This is not new, don’t worry, it’s something we already knew.
Also, every single point was completely incorrect lol. The only one that was slightly correct was saying about repeating a phase two. Which isn’t strictly true, as it needs to be expanded. Which we already knew. The part about the cost of it and number of participants was plucked from the air and not actually a concern of ours, as it’s all about the next stage being taken up by or funded by a pharmaceutical Company. Way too many incorrect posts to wade through over the past couple of days...
Morning bankfool...do you sleep? :)
Yes, yes, yes! This right here! (Ignoring inanaco and his disingenuous comments, as I know he knows better than what he’s posting...but I can’t be bothered to argue the toss today)
This is what I’ve been saying all along! Bad trial design...remove the lower doses and the castration sensitive and then see what we have in the full results. That’s what I will be looking out for and that’s also what will be important in companies viewing our results and making decisions on them.
The only niggle I had yesterday about the wording of maximum dose was cleared up by Suzy today. I knew there would have been a reason for not going higher, as the drug clearly works, so didn’t understand why the headline results mentioned it so much. Turns out there was a perfectly reasonable explanation and it was only included purely for the purposes of transparency by Suzy.
Up until yesterday, I read every message. Now, there are so many crazy comments, mixed in with the sensible ones that I don’t have the time to sort through them.
Just to say that I felt the results were good and I topped up today. Filtering out the rest of the noise now. Each to their own investment strategy... Good luck everyone :)
I feel it is fitting to post this here...
However bad a day people have think they have had (I still believe that we will come good), then at least nobody did what I did and said to Adam Hargreaves when he began posting a few days ago “You seem to have a scientific Background, what are your opinions on the results so far?”
Huge facepalm!
Haha!
I’ve missed a lot of posts so didn’t see a couple of your initial ones Adam. Oh and just to say, I have spoken about the wider applications of 201 a couple of times, so have bounced back tonight and will be topping up in the morning! A wider perspective required here and your analysis of the headline results was spot on (obviously).
OB, I may have had a couple of gins at this point. Jenny, good to see you back :)