Ok. So it(the alleged fraud slide)does exist.
However, since CRG wasn’t providing any reference for it, & TGTX IR didn’t seem to recognize it, I concluded it didn’t.
Additionally, you would think anyone alleging fraud would select a more updated data source (I count 11 presentations since ASH2013) to make his case, and, to be able to reference it when questioned.
Since he also doesn’t provide the calculations which presumably justify his allegations, and he appears to totally ignore the effect of the new micronized fed formulation on projected exposure levels, efficacy, etc., not to mention the issue of relative toxicity(i.e. his research isn’t very thorough), I still find it hard to understand why you guys are taking him as seriously as you are.
His suggestion that iNHL & MCL should show greater activity (both of which show a significant amount, though only 1PR) also isn’t compelling, because we have no information on how long these pts have been treated at this dose level, and therefore, no basis on which to judge how those responses compare to Idel. & IPI-145.
However, since ASH 2014 Abstracts are only about 2 weeks away, whether any of CRGs TGTX assertions are plausible should be clarified very soon.
At the least, I expect they'll have our attention;)
