Hank, here goes:
ME: Last Sep cancelling a presentation because they were awaiting the imminent publication that had not been submitted.
YOU: Not a pump. They hoped the would get published quicker. There was never an NR stating that was the reason for the cancellation as I recall.
The paper had not yet been submitted, and they say one could expect 6-9 months from the submission. So they certainly were not expecting it in 2017. The 8K led many here to assume it would be "soon".
ME:Last ASCO, only 2 events to go [though they had no intent to unblind at 233]
YOU: Perhaps not, but perhaps they had hoped that the pub would be out by then. No intention to unblind is only your assertion but they may have hoped to share more blinded info but couldn't.
NBWO is stating they need the "Spring Refresh" to get the data to make the unblind decision. That was already past. And it was clearly too expensive to do another refresh that summer, right?
ME: Dec '16, waiting on an event count [though not disclosing they were actually waiting on OS events]
YOU: They do not make disclosures to please your curiosity.
Almost everybody here argued strongly that the "event count" being waited on was PFS 248 as that was trial design. Only Pyr pointed out that the language was oddly vague, and everybody mocked him. Once more, the PR accomplished the intent of making longs think what was not true. How many shares did longs buy in the late 2016 pump-a-thon, partially based on the trial being near unblinding?
ME: P2 Direct trial to start in 2015. Oh, and last ASCO Dr B confirmed summer 17.
YOU: They had planned to start Direct back then but then events intervened like the halt then financing etc.
H1 2015 (the timeframe they were pushing) they were flush with money from NW. And the hold was not yet in place. And what events took place later when it was supposed to be last summer. Then last fall?
ME: IA in 2014 could lead to early halt [how the hell could anybody every argue 2014 while 2018 is not enough is beyond me]
YOU: The IA debate is an old one and well discussed from both sides on this board. Just rehashing old arguments.
Does not change the fact that there was plenty of excitement by longs around here that the 2014 IA could lead to a halt. Shares were bought on the basis of that PR by LP. Nicely done by her.
ME: UK PIMS, that they failed to disclose they never applied for the real step forward in the program
YOU: They probably discovered that it would be quite expensive to continue with the PIMS app. so they dropped it hoping to pick it up ay a later time again when the economics made more sense.
Yeah, they started the process w/o knowing what was involved. Or else they knew they could never provide the data to complete the process, and only did the easy paperwork step to get the longs buying more shares.
ME: HE hospital exemption could lead to revenue.
YOU: That was the hope that died on the difficulty of negotiating with the numerous parties in Germany.
Everybody knew that this type program yields little to no cash because insurance does not pay. Again, your point seems to be LP is just plain incompentant.
ME: Prostate. This drug is now dead. If any real value they could have sold/partnered it
YOU: I wondered that myself and assumed that they thought they could come back to it themselves when they had more financing and less on their plate.
It has no patent protect left, so the value has died. Why let it waste to zero instead of selling it? The obvious answer was that it never had much value.
ME: And of course, the Swiss approval.
YOU: This too has been much discussed on this board and I believe Senti as I recall explained that fully. But as usual you keep rehashing all these old points over and over again.
The only explanation for this outrageous claim (that they were approved for marketing, patients all over the world would be flocking to Swiss clinics) was that they miss-understood the authorization they did receive (to manufacture and run trials). The "incompetent defense" again.
