undervalued?, page-53

cortinaboy,

Hi mate. To be honest when I saw that you had written a response to my opening post I decided not to read it.

This is not because you don't make valid points. You do make valid points, you are well researched, you know your stuff and you are obviously intelligent.

The reason I chose to avoid your post (until curiosity got the better of me) is because of the fact that you make counter arguments.

Of course counter arguments can be helpful and good - but you have been making a habit of counter arguing to my posts for a long time.

One can find a counter argument to any statement. Going to the extreme that an enlightened person (and even some quantum physicists) state that the world (of form) doesn't really exist - and they are far wiser (and smarter) than me.

But back to neu...

You mentioned (ok, this is a counter argument, sorry) "if NNZ-2256 works, then people might just start using glypromate, or IGF-1 (although IGF-1 has a terrible safety profile) or other analogues instead of paying for NNZ-2256. Not so good for profits."

But IGF-1, whilst used by the body, isn't a good drug. The body does not take it in well. Hence nnz2256 has been developed, and this does have the characteristics of a good drug.

Regarding the safety profile of nnz2256 - this isn't in doubt really. So many studies, no safety issues and no side effects found.

The animal models are great. Retts and fragileX can be replicated perfectly. ok, it's still a mouse, not a human - but IGF-1 is working the same in a mouse's brain as in a humans.

The results we have seen have never been seen in retts or fragileX mouse models. I've no comment to make about the diabetes mouse model as I know nothing about it to be honest.
..........
So we have a substance (IGF-1). We know pretty much what it does. We know that retts and fragileX sufferers have a lack or deformed version of this substance.

We know that the body does not take this substance as a drug, but nnz2256 is a "drug" version of it. We know that it is safe (so far), with no side effects either.

We know that we can replicate a perfect mouse model (as it's a genetic thing). We know that we have pretty stunning results. We know that they are better than any other Retts/fragileX mouse results.

We know that some of the parents on the Retts trail have stated some pretty amazing results.

We know that the market for a Retts/fragileX drug is enormously lucrative. We know that (if successful) neu shares will become very valuable indeed.

Now I'm sure that there are plenty of counter arguments to all that I have written. But taken as a collective I still feel that we have a great risk/reward ratio. It's not a sure thing, put pretty good imho.

cheers