It is a nice article, but is doesn't appear to be major news to those here. We already knew "it worked"... based on the data presented at the end points of the studies. But, what the data showed was that it didn't actually work in quite the way that they had thought it would.
The new publication doesn't seem to obviously alter anything much... as far as the investment case is concerned...
The end point of the study left them with a positive result, but it left them also not knowing WHY the result was positive, generating a new need for them to move the base in "the science"... so that they had something actually standing there underneath the results, supporting their thesis re a mode of operation by which the benefit was generated.
A good result in terms of science... isn't necessarily a good result in terms of investment... Good for scientists to see the result, and good for patients that you do know how to address the bit of the problem you've shown you can. Not good for investors that you don't own the patent on the method by which the benefit is generated... given you don't KNOW the method by which the benefit is generated ?
One caveat... I haven't read the article... so can't claim I know the detail in what the article presents that is or might be different from the results of the studies previously announced.
They do lead with a statement suggesting that the results they show mean a Phase III investigation is justified.
I think to have that happen, they'll still need to move the pillar in the science in a way that there is a solid concept in a method of operation that is supported by the data, that also supports the case for Phase III.
Not clear to me that this actually does that...
.JPG)
.JPG)
