Biotech Values

[exwannabe]

CLDX: Re: Herper's article on '011

What was so bad about it? It seamed like he hit 3 points:

. The ITT results were unimpresive
. Subgroups looked good
. Numbers were small

He opined that it could well be strong enough data foir the trial to go into further trials.

That does seam to grasp the core issue.

Yeah, the headline was a bit snappy, but he writes for a real magazine that sells the stuff.

Back to the real topic, is ther a decent chance that some of the unconfirms are just that the data is early? They said the data was incomplete and variable (OK, I know that can be spin) which could imply that some could become confirmed over the next few months.

Seeing some durrability in those response would go a long way to making the data a little more clear.