News Focus
News Focus
icon url

flipper44

09/24/17 2:25 PM

#136202 RE: anders2211 #136171

Interesting.

Something else about your hypothesis probably would follow. If efficacy IAs were previously conducted and successful, that might mean a BLA could have been submitted quite some time ago. Again, just discussing an outlier hypothesis. Purely an intellectual exercise.
icon url

Ambassador4Life

09/25/17 1:35 AM

#136249 RE: anders2211 #136171

Hi anders and flip,

I never posted here but I regularly read all of yours, flipper, Senti and Doclogic etc posts. Here is my thoughts too, You are exactly right.

1. Regards to cancellation of conference - never happend before. they would have just presented as they did before. this would gave them some more exposure of their trails.

2. The reason I think they would have cancelled is, they might have received some material information or they yet to receive by now and 27th date.

3, if they go ahead with the conference then they are obligated to release the material info but it seems like they need some time to process this material information.

Let see....Thanks
icon url

anders2211

09/25/17 5:01 AM

#136254 RE: anders2211 #136171

In my last post I made a typing error, I didnt mean "but SEC laws are very clear in disguising between a press release and SEC Filing. As the SEC explains it"

but I meant

"SEC laws are very clear in distinguishing between a press release and SEC Filing. As the SEC explains it"

auto correct :)
icon url

gropgrip

09/25/17 2:24 PM

#136370 RE: anders2211 #136171

They have released 8k`s already (at least once that I know of) where they answered to investors inquiries.

Wouldn`t you think it is unfair to tell some but not all investors that they are going to hold a presentation at a conference? Do you think it would`ve been wise to let us figure out that they aren`t holding a presentation on the 27th? By just not showing up?

The publication of blinded data is not much of a big deal and absolutely also does not require a quiet time or canceling of a sponsored conference...



It`s a logical fallacy to assume what you want to prove. You assume that they were required to cancel the presentation. Maybe they just didn`t want to regurgitate ASCO and 31 of August presentation and LP this time didn`t want to throw a sickie, while she could steer the attention to the paper we are waiting for. And it isn`t unreasonable to not hold a presentation for the third time, while waiting on a paper that could come out pretty soon.