Huh? Please explain to me what information was gleaned from the ASCO poster which detailed very early cohort results on a quite limited group of extremely sick patients whom were being administered incredibly low doses that could lead multiple posters to definitively downgrade expectations as to the ultimate potential of Kevetrin?
I guess I missed this glaring 'tell' revealed in the finer minutiae of said poster which so powerfully and convincingly has determined that "K" is not going to be a potent cancer therapeutic.
I know these posters who so cleverly ascertained such definitive conclusions from the ASCO data are not attempting to bash "K", but I nevertheless find such unanimity in strong judgments as to the drug's reduced potential to be puzzling when such evaluations are based upon results that reflect a veritable negligible dosage of the molecule having been administered up to this point.
But then again, maybe I'm wrong, maybe Kevetrin should have shown more at this preliminary stage? Just not sure what were the expectations that were not met. Should these terminally ill stage 4 patients have seen their metastasized tumors eradicated by the most minimal of 'K' dosing? I hadn't thought so, did you?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
