InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

clearwater2

09/11/07 5:23 PM

#17089 RE: Big On Tarvy #17086

BOT that is a pretty good post!
icon url

jakedogman1

09/11/07 5:51 PM

#17090 RE: Big On Tarvy #17086

If we're talking analogies here, how bout shareholders are tired of 2nd and goal and 7 yards for a score. We've had the ball in the red zone two many times and no TD and no field goal. Penalties in the form of pipes and fumbles, and goal line stands in the form of getting booted of the russell with a suspect trade. It's fourth quarter and were down but two scores. Can mgmt get on the scoreboard?
icon url

terrygd

09/12/07 3:03 PM

#17103 RE: Big On Tarvy #17086

You are correct in one aspect BOT.
It doesn’t cost anymore to do 50 lung patients, 50 breast, 50 colon and 50 prostate, than to do 200 lung patients.

I've always thought the point of these trials was to apply to the FDA for marketing approval, not to see how many different types of cancer we could get into trials. 200 patients treated for 4 different indications won't get FDA approval. 200 patients treated for one indication might. If your reasoning was correct these pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be doing trials for other indications of already aproved drugs. They could just hand in the data for the cancer indication already approved.

Go figure


Impeccable: let management release those 25 million or so shares they have set aside for options and bonuses. If they are sure sure they won't need them for financing what do they have to lose? They can reinstate them later.