InvestorsHub Logo

ignatiusrielly35

09/20/19 2:36 PM

#101503 RE: Inoviorulez #101502

Nonsense. They knew the Aim2Cerv timeline from the beginning. They didn’t wake up one day and say “hey, this is taking a while, so let’s just kill it.” They prioritized their limited resources by eliminating it. If they had access to reasonably-priced capital they would not have killed it.

DCS1

09/20/19 3:46 PM

#101505 RE: Inoviorulez #101502

Berlin tried to shorten the deadlines to 2020 and caused a maintenance of AXAL, with the risk that the data would be invalidated and not be able to use them in a new EMA if it had not been lifted. Petit had to wait to fix the mess of the CMO and CEO.

raja48185

09/20/19 5:14 PM

#101510 RE: Inoviorulez #101502

No, the reason for stopping the phase 3 was because there was no near-term value for the single AIM2CERV trial. I read the newsletter and final data for that study was not due until 3 years later. If the only value driver was 3 years later that would have done no good. Results for the cervical were not to be expected until 2022.

Since NEO and HOT had shorter catalysts (closer catalysts) and were next generation they offered more value. Not because of the money.


So now how far along are the NEO and HOT trials? They were supposed to have 5 HOT trials identified up and running by EOY 2019, and If I am not mistaken 3 HOT trials running by EOY 2018. Same thing with HER2 stopped as a cost cutting measure ?

May be they will stop everything of HOT and NEO going by the same logic - that final data will take years and they have no money now, (a fact).