(Total Views: 537)
Posted On: 03/20/2025 11:03:25 AM
Post# of 154928
SamaGong wrote:
Otherwise why would the letter mention this study at all if the first was a flop? And why not to wait for "the outcome of the follow-up preclinical study” (see his December 17 letter) before discussing the "possibility for a pilot study”?
Probably not. But we don’t know how much time a preclinical GBM study with such design takes to begin showing promising data.
Ditto myself. I am not a new long, been here since Nov 2019. Just trying to balance my half glass empty with half glass full when it’s tentatively possible. Speaking of the former, this last letter concerns me quite a bit. I would like to see more openness from the CEO in recognizing certain failed expectations and plans. Specifically, the delay in the CRC trial that was planned to start in January/February and the failure to explain the no show at the MASH TAG conference last January. The last is specially concerning IF the decision not to participate was due to the failure of the follow-up mice studies to confirm LL significant effect on fat accumulation about which we were told only now. I hate to say this but re-reading this letter time and again I felt at times something like a shadow of Nader, still very distant, lurking between the lines. The usual gap between the investors expectations and the way things are moving seems to grow wider and puts more pressure on the CEO.
Quote:
I'm glad there are glass half full people in the world. You think that the letter "strongly suggests"
the repeat pre-clinical mouse study has been "yielding positive results"
Otherwise why would the letter mention this study at all if the first was a flop? And why not to wait for "the outcome of the follow-up preclinical study” (see his December 17 letter) before discussing the "possibility for a pilot study”?
Quote:
Did it start 'immediately' 3 months ago like the December letter said?
Probably not. But we don’t know how much time a preclinical GBM study with such design takes to begin showing promising data.
Quote:
I'm not interpreting positive results in the new letter. I see all the 'possibility' and 'potential' words in each letter as Yeah, maybe.
Note: As a long time long, some evaporation from my cup has occurred, to be expected. The ice melted years back, so the taste will be off a little (don't want to type diluted), but will be worth it. Still a great time to be a new long, or larger share pile long.in recognising
Ditto myself. I am not a new long, been here since Nov 2019. Just trying to balance my half glass empty with half glass full when it’s tentatively possible. Speaking of the former, this last letter concerns me quite a bit. I would like to see more openness from the CEO in recognizing certain failed expectations and plans. Specifically, the delay in the CRC trial that was planned to start in January/February and the failure to explain the no show at the MASH TAG conference last January. The last is specially concerning IF the decision not to participate was due to the failure of the follow-up mice studies to confirm LL significant effect on fat accumulation about which we were told only now. I hate to say this but re-reading this letter time and again I felt at times something like a shadow of Nader, still very distant, lurking between the lines. The usual gap between the investors expectations and the way things are moving seems to grow wider and puts more pressure on the CEO.
(9)
(0)
Whatever happens, we have got
Le-Ron-Li-Mab, and they have not.
Le-Ron-Li-Mab, and they have not.
