Replies to post #10709 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

>>They already have data segregated by treatment, so I don't think revealing the results by dose level undermines the masking of the trial in any way.<<

Agree. Companies often argue (dubiously, in most cases) that interim data cannot be disclosed in order to “protect the integrity of the trial.” But this argument goes out the window when the control-arm data is disclosed, as was the case in the “208” trial.

>>One other possibility here is that the results by dose levels may have revealed something unpleasant or confounding. For example, if your best results are at 20 mg and you see poor results at 10 and 40 mg, that almost suggests that the 20 mg results are a fluke as well. How else, biologically, can you explain that an intermediate dose had an effect while half the dose and double the dose were entirely ineffective?<<

A very good observation that I overlooked.

[krenjp]

208 trial. Note that the 207 data showed a clear distinction between 20mg and 40mg. In the end, a 20mg would probably be better. In your two possible explanations, you overlook the prime concern of a small company; keep interest of investors alive. If the next data release is by the end of summer, you would want to keep the news flow alive in the meantime.
I still don't believe that all healthy worse-case-scenario outlooks give you the best prediction of what is happening, especially when there is a more simple explanation right there; there still is a lack of impartiality on this board, including when people start partially assuming that when European bureaucrats decide to fly in to visit the goats that it is a sign of imminent approval for gtcb. By the way, there was an article comparing gtcb to its competitors in genetic engineering news last week.