I'd have to review it to check whether he actually said it was the biggest killer. And if he did, it's patently false as you say.
He did go on about GBM being the most deadly. Which is probably not unfair. It's at least up there as one of the most deadly, though I'm sure there are some equally as deadly, such as childhood DIPG.
Yes, last I heard, all cancer approvals for EU member states go through the EMA. Though that doesn't bother me particularly; it's just sloppy rather than intentionally deceiving.
The thing is, on a pay to play platform like this, he knows the hosts are going to lap up everything he says in an entirely non-challenging way. So it really is advertising without any of the consumer safeguards that apply to normal media advertising.
I take it you have some safeguards or codes of practice for TV advertising and the like. Even if they are pretty lax compared to elsewhere.
Who is this show aimed at? Presumably it's the investment community (whatever that is..).
I don't honestly think it would influence potential institutional investors, because they would recognise this show for what it is; a plain old infommercial.
I'm sure that young lady with the instant blood test (my minds gone blank) went on shows like this. Theranos, that's the one.
So if it's aimed at anybody, it's probably private investors like you or I. Sorry I meant just 'I'.
Unless this show encouraged you to put your hand in your pocket?
And I think the answer to that is clear...
So really, it's just a bit sleazy in my mind.
And as well as being a bit sleazy, I'm not even sure this sort of thing is value for money.
It's interesting to us, because we can parse every single comment he makes for insights into how he thinks and operates, and maybe get some pointers into company intentions.
But there's an element of preaching to the converted.
Maybe it gets some new retail on board, I don't know.
Which brings us to the stated intent to go straight for regulatory submission asap.
Can we take that as a 'will happen'? Not really, imo.
Because he made that comment, does it make it any less likely that topline might be somewhat equivocal, with some hedging of bets in the way they PR it?
I don't think so.
Obviously I hope they do have a coherent SAP that has at least been run by regulators, and they know how they will apply the data to the SAP and convert that into a BLA without delay. And if that's all in place, then we will get a very definite and positive topline (assuming the data itself is up to scratch).
So really, I just take it as an infommercial. And a very far cry from a full data exposition at a Conference with a critical audience looking on.
I preferred Les when he stood in for LP a few years back at that professional conference when she went down with a bug (early Covid adopter?)
And he didn't do too badly back then, all things considered, even if he couldn't pronounce 'precursor'.
I also found myself wondering if he dyes his eyebrows.
