Hanna... I agree 100% on everything you just posted. I do think that the surgical scar market could be huge if
we truly have a product that can make a scar virtually become unseen, or even close to it. When 90%
of the observing group points to our treated group as clearly having the better observable scar, then
we may well have something very important to market down the road...
Yes it was Hanna.. Very concise and informative. Said exactly what I stated in three earlier posts I made here on the issue. P values are a friggin joke when efficacy is established by visual means. The product/drug is designed to materially decrease the visability of surgical scars. It either does that, or it doesn't. This is not rocket science as far as evaluating the efficacy, ie, the results of the treatment(s). Insurance may not cover this type of treatment to begin with if they consider it purely cosmetic rather than medically necessary. If it is
only marginally better than re-section by itself, there is no way they're going to cover it. But at least if the
results are spectacular, patients will likely use and pay for it regardless.
Right here and long huge from $18.75... Lovin the action but can't explain it today except possibly Shire may be surfacing as a buyout candidate. Yesterday it was NPSP...lol!
Come on gang. We're not dealing with a new drug that people are unsure whether it works or not.
"P" values?...lol...Stat significance. Great when you're dealing the the effects of a drug that you cannot
view internally as working or not. Here you can SEE whether it is working or not. "P" values when your
control measure is a bunch of people looking at a scar and forming an opinion which scar looks better...
the treated or non treated group? What the FDA will care about is whether the drug is doing any damage or harm to the patients. Safety. Both over the short term and the long term.,,,, As far as efficacy...You can either see that or not.
No sense doing the secondary until the stock is at least 5 pts higher IMHO... TTPHnow $38 this morning and basically has double plused after releasing trial results less than a year ago. We are very undervalued right now so hopefully they wait a bit before doing a secondary.
biotechnician...First of all I am long large RXII and sitting on a nice loss from last year as well...
The term "sustained effect" is NOT a clinical or medical term of art. "Sustained reduction in scar
severity" is obviously plain English, concise, and should have been repeated in this PR. Sustained
effect connotes nothing really. What effect were they refering to...? The lack of "effect" in the one
month pictures or the better "effect" at three months?
Sustained "reduction" means continuing reduction is scar size, shape or visability. Sustained "effect" means something very different, and the term was chosen very carefully by them...make no mistake about that.
IMHO they were trying to impart that although the effect of the drug was continuing...perhaps even flattening or reshaping the scar to some degree, it was not reducing it's over all "size". IMHO...
The basic difference between the antibiotics of TTPH and CEMP is that the TTPH antibiotic was designed to basically treat gram negative bacterias, whereas Soli from CEMP can be used in both gram positive and gram negative bacterias. Based on the price differentials from both companies we have at least 700 million in catch up value to make up once positive Phase 3 trial results are released....
Bottom line...If you don't have anything material to put out in a release ......don't.
Putting out a release with nonsensical terms such as "sustained effect" presumes those
reading it are as ignorant about clinical terms as the person writing the release obviously
OK Hanna...What does "sustained effect" mean? Of course you have to interpret that phrase as it
is not a word of art in biotech land as far as I know. Been doing this for over 20 years and NEVER heard
that phrase used by any physician, or in a press release.
That is 54% of the people viewing the respective treated versus non treated scars thought that the treated scars looked better. That leaves 46% who didn't. The data didn't say or imply that the scar looked 54% improved from the non treated one. It's visual.
Hanna....You must of read a different press release then I did. Said nothing of what you posted in your first paragraph. That is what you "implied" from the release. A press release is only as good as the specific words that are used. All I saw was the term "sustained effect" which is a CYA term for "not much happening but
maybe it will over time"... Very disappointed. If you have nothing very positive to say, then just don't say it.
The CEO is a PR nightmare......
What we want to hear is 75% or better recognition for a nine month to a year study! Until or unless we get to that number it's pretty much irrelevant IMHO... That is when we will know we have a saleable drug.
The one month findings sucked frankly. They should have worded the release (if it was true) that the 3 month obsevations confirmed the effective uptake of rxi-109 over time on reducing the visual effects of scarring on the treated versus the non treated group.
rmsacc... What's your take on this PR and the wording "sustained effect"...?? I'm frankly underwhelmed with it...
This announcement was pretty much expected by just about anyone who follows this stock, but it does
remove the last real uncertainty prior to approval. We should have fairly clear sailing all the way to approval
up to $40 IMHO... After that, and provided the drug is approved with no limitations or follow up studies...labeling issues, etc. the $55 target is very doable. I frankly think the company following FDA approval would be an ideal takeover target for a large pharma, and obviously north of $55...Holding
and haven't sold one share... IMHO
The thumbs down are from some nut job on another board who I ticked off by bashing their stock and telling them I thought it would file for BK (which it did about four months ago...lol). So he has been following me around now for about six months looking for my posts on any board, and putting thumbs down on them under multiple alias. Obviously he's crazy, but my hope is he's not dangerous to himself, or to others. Yahoo won't do anything about it unfortunately. Crazy people all over this world who really need help.