The trials that I post are new trials that I find on clinicaltrials.gov
Many of these trials are early stage trials. Many are sponsored by groups other than Imclone (University Investigators, NCI, etc.) In general, I consider it positive that a number of investigators, independent of Imclone, are pursuing clinical trials of Erbitux.
I agree with you that it would be nice to have more follow up of clinical trial results. Admittedy, there are a number of clinical trials which end up going nowhere for whatever reason-->side effects, small indication, enrollment, etc.
In terms of reporting clinical trial results, it would be nice to have a database of completed trial results (both good and bad)--I seem to recall that some Big Pharma companies are starting to do this? If trial results are positive, then there is good incentive to report/publish. If they are negative then the results can also be reported/published. In terms of reporting negative results, I'm not sure what the ethical/moral/legal standard(s) are in terms of reporting. As long as a trial is well done, negative results can be useful, and advance future studies.
From an investing perspective, successful phase III trials (and in some cases phase II trials) are the most important clinical trials (IMHO). For example, I expect the upcoming Crystal trial to have a major material impact on Imclone-->significantly more than the early stage trials that I post. Hope this helps.
AI
