Then you went on to say “people” keep saying this… that there is “zero risk”, which is not true in my experience. And even if they said this, the appropriate characterization is derisked with regard to OS results.
It would be different if you did not pretty much go on to try to characterize everyone who is welcoming the results in the same light and to try to suggest that really nothing has changed and spend the rest of the post emphasizing risk primarily as the issue. You could say it’s a difference in fundamental perception, or opinion, but to suggest there has been a reduction in risk is FALSE, or “not true” is itself reasonably not true.
Of course there is not zero risk in any investment. Even treasuries have a risk with regard to interest rate changes at the very least. So it is a straw man to take that quote and then apply it to everyone talking about derisking and then spend the post suggesting that basically nothing much has changed. I agree that our opinion however is similar in many ways. My objection was your tone and the tone on the board on that day. You were feeding into a non-stop series of posts suggesting that basically nothing has changed and it’s going down.
As for the aspect of the ECA, that is ALWAYS a risk, but we have articles from key FDA personnel referencing not just ECA’s but using justifications that could be directly from any discussion about their use here. So while it is some risk, certainly, no more than it would be otherwise. The issues will be much more complex than just that at the end of the day, in regard to whether the FDA approves, and I believe the totality of the circumstances would likely make rejection or non-approval unlikely. Just my opinion, but we could write about risk all day. In the end, investors need to make a decision in or out and what is more likely. Emphasizing just the risk primarily is consistent with legal advice to get a client to pay one to provide them with legal services for something they might otherwise wait out without a lawyer, or try to do themselves. I get that might be the origin of your tone. You demohasized risk reduction to focus on risk, risk, risk. Given the tone of the day, I don’t think that is where they are. Not that there is no risk, but I think they have been substantially derisked and I think the survival data is undeniable. I believe they won’t be able to ignore the benefits of low side effects, good quality of life and extended survival even if they quibble to any extent on the controls, though I think they will likely see a company that appears to go to great ends to ensure they are the best possible ECA’s including hiring the creator of the SOC, Dr. Stupp.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
