terry,
this is sort of how my thought process goes w/r/t some of dew’s picks.
gtcb: I agree that it was/is super cheap. there was/is a regulatory risk to its antithrombin program, but there was minimal efficacy risk. This was a risk that I was willing to take based on the valuation of the company.
adh: the 2 most advanced programs are almost all efficacy risk, which to me is far more substantial than the regulatory risk associated with gtcb. the “anti” cadherin approach? everyone has a favorite protein target. I don’t see anything special about cadherin that makes it a target that stands out as a no-brainer in the expected efficacy department. Also, as others have noted, cadherins are expressed on normal tissue as well, which might raise some toxicity flags. I’m sure the animal models for their show good results, but anti-cancer animal models are often poor predictors of clinical efficacy.
Eniluracil?
here is a quote from the adh web-site: “GSK’s clinical development program for the combination of 5-FU and eniluracil met with success in early development. However, three Phase III trials undertaken by GSK failed and development was stopped.”
4th time’s the charm? good luck playing around w/ the dosing.
imho, adh falls into the “genr” category of dew’s picks. he may correct me if I am misrepresenting his rationale, but I think it’s based more on the market cap being out of whack with their stages of product development, but I think their potential products are weak and potentially suspect (similar to genr’s amd drug).
that’s not to say that adh won’t go up or that it’s market cap *isn’t* out of whack, but it just seems like the kind of risk that I wouldn’t want to take.
then again, I was a qlti shareholder back in the day…so who’s the fool now?
"Money ain't everything--Unless you don't got any."
-stated philosophy of my father and uncle.
AI
