Replies to post #3608 on Repros Therapeutics Inc (RPRX)

[io_io]

<If we want to claim that somehow RPRX management is different then they need to explain WHY they are smarter.>

Why ? Every Biotech management is independent of the next. Its an independent variable. To echo DewD's program bias BS is just plain RHETORIC.

There is absolutely no need to explain why they are smarter, if they are smart enough to get where they are, with a candidate (which Proellex undoubtedly is, a viable candidate) to change medical history. From my desk, that looks smart - what desk do you sit at ?



<The point, very simply, is that biotech have an OVERWHELMING history of making poor decisions about trial design......Why they are different.......Or prove that they have designed this trial correctly.>

When are you going to take notice that in this case, the Phase IIs had placebo controls and active controls, and also that they are of COMPARABLE SIZE to the Phase IIIs ?

So that, almost uniquely with Proellex relative to those other failed drugs you walk about, there is no need for extrapolation of effect from smaller trials (especially O.L. trials) to larger trials.

[corpstrat]

Clark, we're all sounding like broken records, i know, but you surely need to take account of the mkt cap and the potential value of Proellex in your invesment decision here.
Even if fears prove true on the anemia trial design - and I expect you know that BSR finds them overblown - it would be a delay of what is still a relatively near term commercialization.

Surely the reason there's not an enormous amount of DNDN-like probing of the trial design details is that walldiver and ocyan are not into UF. You and io are the main stat-oriented transfers here from DNDN IV and ihub, aren't you. Anyway, when push came to shove, did all that brilliant thinking lead to stronger predictions - and of what? I'm genuinely asking your recall and opinion. You may just be missing the intellectual stimulus rather than risk reduction through insight?

The bummer is that for whatever reason the negativity holds down the pps and makes funding challenging. It becomes a self-fulfilling FUD. You'll remember that DNDN was nearly caught in the same jam in the 2 years before the AC - though in their case they were spending unnecessarily on a big staff and overpaid CEO where RPRX is very strategic in its spending.