I wouldn't read much more into this other then people BOUGHT the "rumor" i.e. expecting something earth shattering from AACR - they didn't get anything that wasn't expected and imo it was a little underwhelming.
Now you will get the sell off of the over exuberance into AACR and a retrace of 60% of the move from $4.40 -> $9
I would expect a test of the high/mid $5's and a base in the $5.80 - $6.20 area - before the next leg up in the fall
You are missing the context of the discussion - wallst posted that the just completed Phase IIb trial would not qualify for an accelerated filing because the control group OS would be tainted by the crossover patients. My argument was that in general that is not the case (Provenge's pivotal trial allowed crossover) and specifically in this case, the improvement (or taint) of the control crossover group would not be significant because only 25 of the 69 control patients crossed over and got TH-302 and there were no RECIST responses in the 25 that did - therefore, the median OS of the control group should not be impacted by the crossover patients and therefore, the chances that the OS of the active arms (the hi-dose arm in particular) have a better chance at showing a statistically significant improvement.
Let me understand this: if the patients who had their cancer "progressed" then switched over to G + TH-302, and if their OS improved, why wouldn't that be a good sign that TH-302 is working? That would also support the data that the groups (240 and 340) that started with G + TH-302 at the beginning, right? What you called "tainted" group still offers a strong argument for the effectiveness of TH-302. IMO.
If your position is that the FDA doesn't consider OS stats in trials that have crossover patients valid, then you are dead wrong. DNDN's Provenge pivotal Phase III trial allowed crossover once the patient progressed. In terms of how "tainted" the data will be - I spelled out the numbers and results that would indicate that the taint will be minimal on the placebo arm - why you choose to ignore that information and continued your rant on tainted results, I'm not sure? The bottom line is that if the OS results are statistically significant even with any crossover impact on the placebo arm, that should make them more valid in the eyes of the FDA. If the median OS in the 340mg group comes in at 10 and the control arm is 7 or less, I would think that would be statistically significant. If the control arm is only a month or two less than the 340mg arm, then it would difficult to argue any crossover "taint", given there were no responses in the crossover group.
I find it disingenuous when you use the word "tainted." You are a trader so when you own shares, THLD can do no wrong. When you sell and then bash in an attempt to bring the price down, THLD has produced crappy results. You are someone that can't be trusted.