fax,
I see your point that the differential in the reported viral load reductions seen in phase Ia between the smaller dosages and the higher ones don’t seem to be substantial. Hopefully this isn’t an issue. SK’s comments regarding the results seen from pre-clinical multi dose studies seem to indicate that he expects to see good things from phase Ib. From the July 14th cc:
“What’s extremely encouraging for me is the fact that so far what we’ve seen in the guinea pig hemorrhagic fever model mirrors extremely well what we’ve seen in patients treated to date. And that is you seem to have some initial direct AV activity, and then something that really takes place several days later that hopefully can lead to longer-term effects. That held true in a portion of the Ph.I patients.”
It’s hard to say if the quote “in patients treated to date” refers to the patients from phase Ia or also includes the patients from phase Ib. I would assume he had seen some preliminary viral load results prior to this cc. Anyway, we should know more soon.
I don’t agree with your assessment that the stock price in late January and early February spiked due to the results leaking from the 0.1 and 0.3 cohorts. Phase Ia started in early August of last year. If you look at the stock price from that point thru the end of last year, you can see that no leak happened during the first few cohorts. The timing of the price spike coincided with the end of original four dose levels of phase Ia.
mojo