undervalued?, page-47

Hello ST,

Impressed that you've managed to write a longer post than me (and that's saying something), including speculation about my hidden agenda (hidden from myself too you seem to be saying) and still seem to have forgotten to tell us about what you claimed is the proven effectiveness of NNZ-2256 in humans. I see then then that you've asked me not to respond to your arguments (not surprised, given how weak they are, but I digress...). Anyway, you know me better than that. I'll try to keep it short though.

In brief, my reference to glypromate was in rebuttal to your bizarre argument that all things natural are great. You've now abandoned that and gone with 'sexiness' as a positive (hmmm, not too convincing, so I'll ignore that one). The blood brain barrier argument and safety are better tries, but unfortunately for you Neuren has already tried those same arguments in support of glypromate just before it failed its trials. Hardly a convincing argument then.

This from Neuren in 2006:

"Glypromate: safe, non-toxic and well tolerated in humans."

This from Neuren in 2004:

"Glypromate®’s potency in preventing cell death, its apparently excellent safety profile, rapid clearance from the body, its ability to cross the blood–brain barrier and its protective capabilities in multiple areas of the brain and multiple cell types make it an excellent candidate.."

Sound familiar ST? And here we are nearly 10 years later with them (or is it only you?) dragging out the same arguments to imply NNZ-2256 is a near certainty to succeed. Well, its not. Glypromate had all the same attributes you are spruiking (except for sexiness I guess) and it failed dismally.

As for the mouse models, I'm sure its great. As pointed out, great mouse models do not mean results translate to humans with the real disease. I mentioned how great the NOD mouse model of diabetes is and how close it is to the human condition. I mentioned there were 127 different effective approaches to treat diabetes in the model. in fact, I made an error there, as at 1999, there were 175 treatemtns that worked in those mice (see Atkinson MA, Leiter EH. 1999. Nat. Med. 5:601–4). Many more have come since and still we can't cure it in humans.

p.s. loved the bit about IGF-1 really working in its trial, but that nobody was able to prove it happened.

Cheers back to you too - we can quibble about the future prospects, but there's no disputing you have the runs on the board having bought at 1.3 or whatever it was. Just don't let your pride stop you taking a few profits here and there.