I really don't see the parasthesias as much of an issue except to the extent that it provides a limit on dosing. I'm a bit more concerned about the atrial fib that showed up in one patient - chances are good it's not significant, but one never knows. All the competitive drugs in the space have some significant SAE's to their name.
The real problem is that they have to get approval in a traditional setting, whereas to my mind the drug would find its best use in patients with NDM-1 strains and the like. In those settings you could ignore the paresthesias and crank up the dose considerably. With a high enough dose I'm sure the drug would work - with their current dosing there is uncertainty in my mind.
Their science is excellent, but they are clearly serial diluters. For whatever reason they haven't partnered, and although their spend isn't that great there are now a lot of shares and warrants (and stock options) outstanding.
I still have a modest position (I sold about half my position in the $0.97 range). I think they have a decent shot at being acquired - their technology really belongs in a bigger company. For example they have some very interesting work indeed in oral health (thrush and the like). I think their heptagonist is a low-risk project, but will require some real sales effort and/or a very large Phase III or Phase IV to demonstrate superiority.
So currently this stock goes in the "good science, bad investment" category. Sometimes you just have to be patient with this sort of company - indeed for many years Ariad fell in the same category.
Peter
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
