Froll, much of what you said I agree with; however when you say:
"The company has been silent since week 5 on this and engaged a PK analytics firm (Ariana). This is likely why; the dose dependency relation is still not strong."
You may ultimately be right, but I'm having difficulty reconciling your opinion (regarding the strength of dose dependency) with the words straight from Dr Missling's mouth on 6/9/17 during the Jefferies presentation:
6:34 "It's also been shown with our drug that very nicely dose dependently it reduces oxidative stress"
8:55 "in addition to that we have published and presented that the compound a2-73 shows a very nice dose dependent reduction in seizures in so far 4 models and we are looking to continue to see other seizure models the drug will be also effective"
10:00 "and despite we didn't expect it we saw a significant improvement in cognition, dose dependent improvement in cognition, as well as in a biomarker which correlates with brain activity, which was also significant"
19:05 re slides 34-35 "you will ask is it all correlated? Or is it not correlated? The answer is it is very nicely correlated, and we have done this analysis and you can see that there's a very nice correlation of all those signals which obviously shows for the consistency of the effect"
There's big investment risks with small cap biotech companies for many reasons; confirmation bias being just one. I get it. But the company and Dr Missling are being fairly clear with their statements:
•"dose dependent cognitive improvement" and
•"significant improvement in cognition, dose dependent improvement in cognition" and
• "very nicely dose dependently it reduces oxidative stress" and
• "a2-73 shows a very nice dose dependent reduction in seizures in so far 4 models"
Investors such as myself will simply need to decide if we can take the CEO at his word and trust that he has the results in his possession to support his word.
[And last quote, regarding data analytics (Ariana):
19:28 re slide 36 "we are now doing a comprehensive analysis of the entire data points which goes from the clinical assessment to the population pharmacokinetics to the baseline scores to the evolution of those scores and now we are going to add (because the patients are on a extension trial over 104 weeks so have access to these patients) we're also now going to do a full genomic analysis of the patients' genome and we will feed that into a data analysis tool which will provide us the correlation with systematic responders which will lead to actionable outcome for a future phase 2/3 data parameters" (this is currently a standard procedure in oncology trials per Dr Missling; to reduce future trial risks)]
