<<...over 90% survive Phase III once they
have advanced that far.>>
What do you
mean by "survive PIII?" Do you mean that they advance
to NDA, or that they are ultimately approved and
My recolection (disclaimer: memory
failing, and am too lazy to look it up) is that only about
40% of the drugs that complete PII ever make it to
market. Am I _that_ mistaken? (BTW, all these statistics
merely reflect an average; much depends on how well the
specific PII is designed.)
Having said this, I am
not hostile to SUPG. I actually like this company
(more or less...) I like the SPTA take-over. And if the
PII 9-nc pancreatic results can be taken at face
value, SUPG is a superb bargain -- which begs the
question, "Can they?"
Just my $0.02,
One quick question...in your post of February 13,
you stated that semantics can play a part in how a
study is allowed to be perceived..you even gave an
exampe of how you can say .."of those responding to RFS
2000....and indicated that this is not the same as the entire
sample....and I agree with you there is a difference...I would
want to know how everyone taking RFS 2000 was
doing...not just those "responding" to the
Has anyone asked the question...or was this just
By the way you did leave out ONE very important fact
in that press release you refered to...
was that two patients being treated with RFS 2000
went into complete remission. I, like you, tend to
disbeleive people and tend to lose credibility in them when
they play games with semantics and pick and chose only
the facts they want you to hear.... You seem to be as
guilty as the company you blame for doing the exact same
And anyone who says they are not shorting a stock is
usually shorting the stock....IMHO...
Good luck to
Here is crafty747 wrote:
you have any idea how long it takes to get things
published. i know somebody has pointed this out
My friend, it is sure take time for a paper to be
published. As short as one month, as long as, may be two
years, especially the data is messy and does NOT make a
lot of sense.
Hey the phase 1 trial of RFS
2000 was publish in 1996. So I will take your argument
that it takes time to publish. Then the phase 1 must
have been concluded in 1995. WHY it takes so long to
conclude a phase 2 trial while some of you actualy believe
that the company can conclude the phase 3 trial in SIX
Anyone see anything here?
You pose the question, "P.S. Call Yahoo and ask
if PMKK1 learned a lesson the hard way. If you are
not an investor , why risk so much for nothing?"
It's not hard to imagine someone wanting to be helpful
to another person even if he had no equity in the
problem at hand. Usually that persons tone of
communication is redolent of concern and affection for his
fellow. Looking over genehunter's communications, with
all the SHOUTING, the hostility, the frequency, the
urgency, the size of the posts, I am convinced that
genehunter is not one of those good samaritans. I think he
is one of those guys that tries to pull a little
emotional support for an underinflated sense of self esteem
by being irritating and confrontational on the net.
The more responses he gets, the better he feels. So,
everyone, let's give genehunter the emotional support he
needs so that eventually he'll feel good enough about
himself to go away.
While this lively debate has been fun, it seems
to have gone absolutely nowhere in oh the last 80
messages or so. It is getting old don't you
From your last post, and many others you are
incredibly concerned about why the Phase II results are not
in a peer reviewed journal. You
"....none in human data, in peer reviewed publications, had
demonstrated the efficacy for the treatment of any type of
cancers, including pancreatic cancer, as judged by
scientific statistical significant level."
you have any idea how long it takes to get things
published. i know somebody has pointed this out before.
Recall that last May, the INTERIM results were updated
in the press release. Do you really believe they
should waste their time trying to publish interim
results? That is like doing half an experiment and trying
to get it published. And even if they had been
trying sense May, do you actually think it would be in
print yet? Take a valium my friend. The trial ain't
over till its over, and unfortunately, we all know
what that means.
Further, do you actually
think that just because it is published that it would
meet your strict criteria above? You obviously haven't
been reading the lit.
I believe the data you
want (to "demonstrated the efficacy for the
treatment... as judged by scientific statistical significant
level.") is called a Phase III trial. True, phase II
sometimes generate decent p values, but indeed the point is
to get proof of concept and perhaps some safety and
Basically it seems that what
you want is for the company to guarantee that the
experimental drug works. Guess, what that is not there job. As
investors it is our job to look at what data is available
and determine if WE think it is worth investing.
Have you read the phase III clinical trial results for
Gemzar? Why don't you start with those and then think
about the implications.
Please go back and re-read each of your posts.
Then re-read the American Eco press release. IMO you
have crossed the line between opinion and
P.S. Call Yahoo and ask if PMKK1
learned a lesson the hard way. If you are not an investor
, why risk so much for nothing?
You need to read any of my statements
in their respective context.
By the way, how
do you judge Clinton's statements?
read my posts in their context and make sensible
My friend, when I wrote these posts, I do not
expect anybody to judge them as a manuscript submitted
for the publication in Science.
Let me finish that
....none in human data, in peer reviewed
publications, had demonstrated the efficacy for the treatment
of any type of cancers, including pancreatic cancer,
as judged by scientific statistical significant
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to finish the
My friend , why would I point out your faults. I
will forward the information to the company
If you feel confident ,keep posting. Just think of
the poor sap ,who was sued by American Eco.
P.S. Joe R is not a Scientist ?
"... RFS2000, regardless "shape" or "form",
however, none in human data."
structure notwithstanding, am I missing something here,
genehunter6p ? Are you saying no 9-nitrocamptothecin data for
human trials exists ?
My friend, can you help me to find out what
statement I made in my message board posts (In this or any
other thread) is not ACCURATE, or FALSE?
appreciate if you can find any false staement in my
When you make any such claim, please be specific and