I sent Traber the following message from that ridiculous blog post:
As a long time shareholder of Galectin Therapeutics I am quite dismayed at the sudden reversal of focus stated in this article.
Your February, 2016 corporate presentation clearly shows the FX trial as something important in the future of Galectin Therapeutics. There is nothing in that presentation to indicate that this short trial was really exploratory rather than an expectation that it would continue the positive developments of the Advanced Fibrosis Phase 1 trial and set the stage for an additional Phase 2b or Phase 3 trial.
The Phase 1 trial had two months of therapy and the FX trial had 4 months, how can you now feel comfortable in making a statement such as 'While most experts feel that liver fibrosis trials should have treatment phases for at least a year in duration, the results from the earlier Phase 1 NASH study provided a rationale for studying a larger group of patients with shorter therapy and exploring non-invasive technologies for assessing liver disease and fibrosis with a goal of using these technologies in later trials.' without making it clear to your loyal shareholders that this trial had many obstacles to overcome and was not nearly as important as the CX trial? I've personally listened and watched each of your presentations in the past year and never heard one word of these concerns.
If the CX trial was truly the pivotal trial in the evolution of Galectin Therapeutics then why use precious resources (cash, manpower) conducting trials that aren't likely to provide meaningful results?
As stated above, I've been a loyal, long term shareholder since 2009 but have almost completely lost confidence (as have many other shareholders) in the future direction of this company. I have also reduced my stake in the company since the FX trial conference call to reflect this lack of confidence. I also see no reason to present data regarding these non-invasive measurement techniques that will add no shareholder value.
