Biotech Values

[bronaess]

"due-diligence" as a defined process entails, Ask a question in a stepped and methodical analysis to derive an evaluation. One can not evaluate IMO-3100, much less Idera Pharmaceuticals bereft of first acquiring knowledge relevant to the vocabulary employed in your post. For valuation of your post, the reader must understand the the meaning of agonist prior to valuation of your statements:"or these TLR7,8,9 agonists in autoimmune setting" ,and "endpoints there is an inverted dose response curve."

To convey a knowledgable response in this setting requires a vocabulary inclusive of antagonist in addition to agonist and their correct usage. Your comments: "...endpoints there is an inverted dose response curve."; and, "...they would want to run another trial with 3100" are misdirected and invalid for a reader seeking knowledge. Unless there be a deliberate intent to provide DISinformation herein, IMO-3100 is an antagonist and your comments require triaged diligence starting with the pathophysiology linked to the root pharmacology involved. Whatever your long, your post is SHORT on the due-diligence of fundamental knowledge FIRST. Your "experience" is truly ipso facto in this post, but neither a focus nor of value for 'due-diligence' by others in this forum. Your FALSE statement and the absence of experience to appropriately render do engender Risk of Harm should a reader accord TRUST to your BET. My responsibility is limited to sharing of knowledge for the common good.