InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 19
Posts 727
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 11/10/2009

Re: BTH post# 522

Tuesday, 06/22/2010 11:48:33 AM

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:48:33 AM

Post# of 80490
Repeating the same unsupported claims again and again doesn't make them any more true. Once again I fail to see how having a positive second interim look is anything but, well, positive. It's just laughable to imply that rida somehow failed because it didn't reach it's end point EARLY. As I pointed out to you earlier, given that the patients enrolled in the P3 were disease stable, it's really not at all surprising that it may take longer for the rida arm to diverge. You can continue to spin that any way you want but so far you've offered no proof to support your claims. Case in point, the comment you made below:

Novelos, Poniard, and Genvec all passed their interim's (whether it be first look, or some a second look), only to see their trial fail hard in the final analysis.


And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The fact that some other trial failed with some other drug in some other company doesn't infer anything about rida. Using your logic, no one would ever invest in a biotech because sometimes P3 trials fail??? Doesn't make any sense, to me.

Finally, you asked for an example and I gave you one. I could care less if that doesn't satisfy you.

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.