Look I don’t know anything about this and I’m just reading homer message boards but it seems that the safety is a tremendously big deal and the data takes time to evaluate. And there’s this:This doesn’t seem like a story you lead with if you have more impressive results on the efficacy. This is one of those things you finish with after you prove it does what you hope it does.
Which seems odd to me given that the comparator is a sugar pill. I doubt any of those SAEs in the placebo group are actually attributed to the actual placebo (at least I certainly hope note).Nobody is saying that. There are just less with the drug.
This was kind of my take...... which is great hit underwealming At the same time.First, do no harm. - check
Second, help the patient. - pending
The FDA looks for safety first, efficacy second. Though I will say that I thought safety had been established in prior trials so I’m not sure how needle-moving this is.This doesn’t seem like a story you lead with if you have more impressive results on the efficacy. This is one of those things you finish with after you prove it does what you hope it does.
$8 not $10Up 33% in Germany.
https://www.boerse-berlin.com/index.php/Shares?isin=US23283M1018
This would put us right back at $10. Here's the exit point for those kicking themselves over last time.
I’m traveling but if someone goes back and looks at the trial parameters, wasn’t there an overall score they were measuring that totaled the severity of reactions or adverse events?This was kind of my take...... which is great hit underwealming At the same time.
But the bulk of the SAEs could have occurred in a few placebo patients. This study is pretty dang small to draw many conclusions. It would be like cutting your first round draft pick for a FA after week one. I was really hoping for some comment on the efficacy.Look I don’t know anything about this and I’m just reading homer message boards but it seems that the safety is a tremendously big deal and the data takes time to evaluate. And there’s this:
Remdesivir SAE's 21.1% for patients receiving Remdesivir vs 27% placebo.
Leronlimab SAE's 8.9% for patients receiving Leronlimab vs 21.4% placebo.
simple math is harder than understanding statistical significance$8 not $10
I don’t know much about this either, just skeptical. It seems like a big deal, but not the news you’d lead with if you’ve got a magic bullet thy kills anythingLook I don’t know anything about this and I’m just reading homer message boards but it seems that the safety is a tremendously big deal and the data takes time to evaluate. And there’s this:
Remdesivir SAE's 21.1% for patients receiving Remdesivir vs 27% placebo.
Leronlimab SAE's 8.9% for patients receiving Leronlimab vs 21.4% placebo.
Coming soon!I’m traveling but if someone goes back and looks at the trial parameters, wasn’t there an overall score they were measuring that totaled the severity of reactions or adverse events?
I’m guessing they don’t have all the data analyzed yet and want to let everyone know it’s safe or option #2 is that it’s a dud and they are delaying that news for now. I’m going with option 1 based off the fact that there is a clear difference in the adverse effects.I don’t know much about this either, just skeptical. It seems like a big deal, but not the news you’d lead with if you’ve got a magic bullet thy kills anything
It's in the ballpark SA. It's all time high at close was $8.77. We are basically at the prior decison point if our opening follows Germany. Many were selling yesterday to lock in profits. Many others will have the same decision today.simple math is harder than understanding statistical significance
It’s not a magic bullet, think that’s confirmed.I don’t know much about this either, just skeptical. It seems like a big deal, but not the news you’d lead with if you’ve got a magic bullet thy kills anything
Search Results Currency ConverterYou are correct, $8.34.
WTF did they do all weekend? It's not like there was a full slate of football games or even MLB to watch.I’m guessing they don’t have all the data analyzed yet and want to let everyone know it’s safe or option #2 is that it’s a dud and they are delaying that news for now. I’m going with option 1 based off the fact that there is a clear difference in the adverse effects.
So, Bass. Are you looking to sell and then buy back if there's a pullback? What are your exit and entry point targets if so?It's in the ballpark SA. It's all time high at close was $8.77. We are basically at the prior decison point if our opening follows Germany. Many were selling yesterday to lock in profits. Many others will have the same decision today.
They’re positive, but lacking sufficient context/detail to be really good. Details of this combined with efficacy would be great.These are solid, positive results.
Saw a 33% bump when the news came out. I was assuming we would see the same.Search Results Currency Converter
6.85 Euro equals 7.83 United States Dollar
what kind of drunken calculator are you using?
I'll be doing the same. I suspect there will be a sharp pullback and choppy trading today. I'm sure the shorts are primed to pounce.IMO you lead with safety and bury Efficacy when you don't have Efficacy.
I'll be taking 1/3 of my position down today.
I hope I'm wrong.
It’s hard to put a story together about how you can reduce sae’s by half and not also have meaningful impact with efficacy. The reduction in SAE’s don’t just magically happen.You know what also has very few SAE's? Dihydrogen Monoxide
IMO you lead with safety and bury Efficacy when you don't have Efficacy.
I'll be taking 1/3 of my position down today.
I hope I'm wrong.
I don’t know anything about #### in hand monoxide but I’m not sure how the SAEs could be so dramatically lower if there isn’t efficacy. Jmo.You know what also has very few SAE's? Dihydrogen Monoxide
IMO you lead with safety and bury Efficacy when you don't have Efficacy.
I'll be taking 1/3 of my position down today.
I hope I'm wrong.
This is what I meant to sayYou know what also has very few SAE's? Dihydrogen Monoxide
IMO you lead with safety and bury Efficacy when you don't have Efficacy.
A drug can’t be safe, but also not have any effect on a particular disease?It’s hard to put a story together about how you can reduce sae’s by half and not also have meaningful impact with efficacy. The reduction in SAE’s don’t just magically happen.
The portion of SAE in the placebo group is substantially higher, do you think that’s just a coincidence?A drug can’t be safe, but also not have any effect on a particular disease?
Tylenol is safe, but doesn’t do a thing for reflux
I am not and I will add on weakness.sigh. I'm counting on the typical investor being a bit more skilled in interpreting these results.
Here's a chance to break out your skills...sigh. I'm counting on the typical investor being a bit more skilled in interpreting these results.
I'm hoping there is weakness shown, as I would love to buy more.I am not and I will add on weakness.
To start, everyone knows my thinking related to this company.@Whyatt or @Terminalxylem do you see anything positive here? Would you call these good results or even promising?
It's not a coincidence. SAEs are defined by events such as death, hospitalization, etc. Obviously a placebo isn't going to cause these types of events (there isn't toxicity associated with a sugar pill). Thus, the only explanation for the SAEs to actually be lower in the drug group is if the drug prevents these occurrences from happening. Good news but still need to see the efficacy results for confirmation.The portion of SAE in the placebo group is substantially higher, do you think that’s just a coincidence?
I think it open around 8. I think it goes beyond, but many variables besides the stock's value can impact that, including but not limited to: press reaction, short sellers, FED printing money and many others.Here's a chance to break out your skills...
Where do you think think it should trade at today?
Where do you think it will trade at?
So you see nothing positive?To start, everyone knows my thinking related to this company.
This PR looks like spin to me. This isn’t the PR they were hopeful for a week ago. Realize that the death was almost certainly due to coronavirus.
Looks like no deaths in the placebo arm, so the unmet medical need angle for drug EUA is not there.
Can you post a link to where you get your quotes. I noticed my source wasn't updating and google has not been my friend on this one.Bid/Ask in Germany is $6.85 - $7.20 on very low volume right now
Not going to be a reliable indicator of US OTC movement. Not sure we see a substantial pop this morning could be wrong.
Yes, the volume is ridiculously low. Few transactions and several list at 0 shares.Bid/Ask in Germany is $6.85 - $7.20 on very low volume right now
Not going to be a reliable indicator of US OTC movement. Not sure we see a substantial pop this morning could be wrong.
Mine has not had an update ina while, either. Unsure of it as a source at this point>Can you post a link to where you get your quotes. I noticed my source wasn't updating and google has not been my friend on this one.
Normal timelines after unblinding is 4 to 6 weeks.WTF did they do all weekend? It's not like there was a full slate of football games or even MLB to watch.
As always, thanks for your views. If the death in the treatment group was due to Covid, won’t they need to disclose that?To start, everyone knows my thinking related to this company.
This PR looks like spin to me. This isn’t the PR they were hopeful for a week ago. Realize that the death was almost certainly due to coronavirus.
Looks like no deaths in the placebo arm, so the unmet medical need angle for drug EUA is not there.