rfj---mcu
I will argue the point with you because you are open minded. There is someone else on the board that answers questions with questions and doesn't respond to evidence properly.
Sell. The evidence for MC-1 efficacy isn't remotely strong enough to warrant anything more than a trivial investment.
can you specifically say why you believe the data wasn't remotely strong enough. In the 250ml trial they had a 37 percent reduction of non fatal mi death and stroke. In the 750ml dose they had a 31 percent reduction in non fatal mi, death, and stroke. There is someone on the board that keeps on switching the endpoint asking people to explain why there were more strokes if you combine the two active arms than in the placebo. That is playing with numbers. There were twice as many people in the two active arms. Aside from that there were 37 and 31 percent reductions in events when you include stroke. Lets say you have 2 more strokes but you prevent 7 heart attacks that is a risk benefit to make. Lucentis has a higher stroke rate on people taking the drug for AMD. A risk benefit assesment is made to determine if the small risk in getting a stroke is worth the fact that you will maintain your vision and not go blind. There is nothing in the MOA of MC-1 that should increase the chances of getting a stroke. In fact the only reason it was included in the endpoint was because the the method of action would probably reduce the severity of any stroke that occurred but that doesn't mean it would prevent stroke so they were naive in this respect. Since there is no reason to think the drug will prevent stroke it helps the chances of achieving statistical significance by taking it out of the numerator and denominator. Death by itself is not something that is expected to be prevented in this 30 day trial. The regulators know that if you reduce additional heart attacks and the strain and damage on the heart that they cause you will be reducing death over the long term. The drug doesn't have to reduce death in 30 days to have a meaningful benefit. Reducing non fatal mi is all it needs to do. As long as it doesn't increase death, which it shouldn't.
Plus MCU is headed for a disaster trying to sell tirofiban; getting uptake for this agent will require real expertise and substantial marketing spend. And as far as I can tell MCU has neither the expertise nor enough cash to do the job properly.
The company paid 17 million for a drug that was getting no promotion and doing 10 million in sales. The people they are selling aggrastat to are the same docs falling over themselves to be in the mc-1 trials. If MC-1 gets approved they will be selling both drugs to the same docs. This was a great deal if they increase sales a little. They don't have to triple or quadruple sales for the deal to make sense.
In short, let other investors suffer through this. If MC-1 is effective, there will be plenty of time to buy.
if what you say here made sense than no stocks would go up until the data is released. I am betting that a good partnership gets done fairly soon which will include a copromotion piece which will validate the aggrastat deal. I also believe publication of the phase 2 trial will validate MC-1. These items should substantially change the stock price for the better before the phase 3 trial is finished
Anyone want to argue specifics, go ahead.
AI
