(Total Views: 587)
Posted On: 02/01/2020 7:52:27 PM
Post# of 155813
1. I think a mistake in a PR regarding the data of a potential cancer drug is a considerable error. Now, is 3 vs 4 patients that big of a deal? Maybe not, maybe so, but people may have added more shares believing that leronlimab has shown efficacy in 3 mTNBC patients and 1 mBC patient.
2. Your edit still refers to the second patient as the third patient in the mTNBC trial. You’d need to change it to “second patient” or change the “mTNBC” to “general mBC” to fix the issue.
“Initial data from this third patient in the mTNBC trial”
3. Your change also doesn’t make sense of the final CTC measurement mentioned at the end of the 2nd paragraph. Why? Because the CTC for that patient is already mentioned two sentences prior:
“New data from the second patient enrolled in the Company’s mTNBC Phase 1b/2 trial showed no detectable levels of CTC with leronlimab in combination with carboplatin after two weeks of treatment.”
Why repeat the same results only a sentence or two later? Maybe they meant to remove the 3rd patients data and wait to PR it this week?
“Initial data from the third patient in the mTNBC trial indicated the CTC dropped to zero after two weeks of treatment with leronlimab.”
When I read the PR initially, I thought to myself, “great we have 3 mTNBC patients all responding the same and 1 mBC patient respond great as well.” There is no arguing my interpretation of the PR because the PR literally says “1st patient in mTNBC,” “second patient in mTNBC,” “third patient in mTNBC,” and “the patient enrolled though the emergency IND.” And we were waiting for new data from the 2nd and 3rd patient in the mTNBC trial (or so I thought) so I had no reason to think otherwise. If the 2nd of 2 patients injected in early January is a mBC patient then there is no CTCs as that’s not part of that protocol.
4. NP needs to clarify the PR and ensure that this doesn’t happen going forward as CYDY approaches uplisting, institutional investors, and more oversight.
2. Your edit still refers to the second patient as the third patient in the mTNBC trial. You’d need to change it to “second patient” or change the “mTNBC” to “general mBC” to fix the issue.
“Initial data from this third patient in the mTNBC trial”
3. Your change also doesn’t make sense of the final CTC measurement mentioned at the end of the 2nd paragraph. Why? Because the CTC for that patient is already mentioned two sentences prior:
“New data from the second patient enrolled in the Company’s mTNBC Phase 1b/2 trial showed no detectable levels of CTC with leronlimab in combination with carboplatin after two weeks of treatment.”
Why repeat the same results only a sentence or two later? Maybe they meant to remove the 3rd patients data and wait to PR it this week?
“Initial data from the third patient in the mTNBC trial indicated the CTC dropped to zero after two weeks of treatment with leronlimab.”
When I read the PR initially, I thought to myself, “great we have 3 mTNBC patients all responding the same and 1 mBC patient respond great as well.” There is no arguing my interpretation of the PR because the PR literally says “1st patient in mTNBC,” “second patient in mTNBC,” “third patient in mTNBC,” and “the patient enrolled though the emergency IND.” And we were waiting for new data from the 2nd and 3rd patient in the mTNBC trial (or so I thought) so I had no reason to think otherwise. If the 2nd of 2 patients injected in early January is a mBC patient then there is no CTCs as that’s not part of that protocol.
4. NP needs to clarify the PR and ensure that this doesn’t happen going forward as CYDY approaches uplisting, institutional investors, and more oversight.
(3)
(0)
