Hey Giddy,
Appreciate the considered response,
I gather you don't realise we are broadly agreed, obviously not completely. You've come at it from the negative perspective (like many others, hence the rationale for my posts on this topic in the first instance.) I'm obviously more bullish on the potential. I acknowledge it is potential though.
By the way, the conversational approach you've taken is productive and I the entire premise of this site should be this form of interaction... so delighted for the disagreement, I'll address your points below
So here goes...
Firstly the extract from the announcement of the 5th April 2024
a) The company never, ever said that "weve cleared reservoirs" for HIV as per your post. Yes that's what they are hoping to achieve and they have said that "The data is consistent with BIT225 targeting virus present in reservoir cells" so they feel that it is doing something but they have not said anything that suggests all reservoirs have been cleared as you said. If they come out and say this in these HIV trial results then I'm buying the beers !
Good point of distinction. If I'm reading you're comment correctly, your suggesting that the impact of 225 is potentially JUST to further reduce levels in plasma ONLY? As opposed to reduction of reservoirs right? So, were I arguing your case, I could, I suppose, at a stretch, argue that this is JUST a reduction in blood plasma levels.
You'll note in commentary MM states that
The blood (plasma) viral load data in particular should be highlighted, as it
suggests that BIT225 is having an impact on a critical phase of viral decay when latent reservoirs are
established.
Ok, assuming you're correct where does that leave us?
You're not overtly negative so I gather you will accept that
a) Regardless, that assumption presents an effective (statistically significant) improvement, that is a step forward (with either determination).
b) MM has obviously imo explicitly correlated the improvement with the presence of latent viral reservoirs (adding the point that current treatment does not achieve this)
c) MM has gone on to say that this suggests that the outcome suggests
''the utility of targeting viroporins as a new class of antiviral
drugs.''
d) Google says <200mg? is undetectable, It looks like testing was done sub 200 and sub 50. I cant claim to definitively understand the data presented at 2a and 2b above tbh (as I've previously indicated). But what I Imagine is the reason for the connection that MM makes (to reservoirs, per c above) and for the ensuing enthusiasm is that the reduction is achieved from an otherwise low base due to the presence of CART. I gather the assumption made here is that this is due to reduction in reservoirs (per inference above). How do you achieve a
statistically significant reduction from an otherwise very low base? I suppose there could be other reasons for the correlation I don't comprehend. But I think my point is logical.
e) I'm obviously not sure how well you read my posts but I've spoken at length about sub complete clearance outcomes and the value of that. Also I've made some stated assumptions around variation and potential variance of outcomes with variance of dosage, duration, catalyst etc, so I gather you've read this out of context/ or read the thread inadequately when you suggest I said
ALL reservoirs.
My entire position has been the potential value of less than all, and what if's around potential outcomes of longer/ varied dosage.
In short, you're arguing the negative case in opposition to at least what management is at least implying imo.
I would also highlight that management are imo implying this
prior to the release of final analysis - so are likely being cautious. The extension of commentary to say a new class of antiviral drugs in this context is very interesting imo. Especially given management have released the prelim but started they are at least in part across the CRO process (Jan 24) - how much more do they know?
But non the less you have a point.
b) You appear to have conflated data from the mice trials which are for Covid with the recent preliminary HIV trial results when you say "its statistically significant, in line with historical (which were good). Ref Mice model". The Covid mice model has absolutely nothing to do with the HIV human trials. This can be confusing since there are multiple separate viral programs underway.
I take your point here. We can acknowledge that these are different diseases, and we can accept that the mouse model is not identical to human model. We can also consider that both are enveloped and that 225 (as I understand it) is successful with enveloped viruses. Eg HepC. Looking again at the comment from MM ''the utility of targeting viroporins as a new class of antiviraldrugs.''. This sentence does not finish with the acronym "HIV". To what extent should we not conflate in you opinion? Why ? Appreciate this is contentious and despite acknowledging your point, What distinctions are you making to suggest this? The ''nature of nature'' or the nature of the trial process? I gather you've seen the extended list of potential viral targets that BIT suggests are potentially in scope?
c) The company has neither suggested nor attempted to test treating HIV without cART. You say "the potential for 225 to be a 'better' stand alone treatment (ie we dont know but may not need Cart)". There is no reason to believe this is a possibility and the company has not suggested that it is. Be careful of people selling Disallowed like this and my other personal recent favorite that "governments will snap up BIT so that they can stockpile it against biological warfare during WW3". BIT225 has interesting possibilities but be careful not to fall down any rabbit holes dug by some around here.
Firstly, you do sound like your trying to promote the naysayer cause when you take a stance like this. But lets give you the benefit of the doubt. As you suggest, I didn't say they have said as much, nor that it has been tested or it is possible. What the report says is that it clears the condition
faster than CART alone. How they would test without would be obviously practically difficult, I gather the mice would get a start in the second act.
The point is the report does not say it wont. It does not say, requires use with CART - because it's not been tested! Per my comments "what if" it works alone. This opens up a completely different opportunity, assuming only a moderate level of clearance, what if that clearance level was continuous, even at a slow rate?. So to dismiss it outright is illogical.
There is no reason to believe it couldn't.
I'll leave biological warfare and WW3 a little to to the side here, but I will say that an effective, durable, portable broad-spectrum drug would have been of significant assistance in WW1.
https://www.kumc.edu/school-of-medicine/academics/departments/history-and-philosophy-of-medicine/archives/wwi/essays/medicine/influenza.html
d
) Please also be careful about hanging all your hopes on seeing the word "cure" in upcoming announcements. Biotron is attempting to fill gaps in the market by demonstrating that BIT225 can help above and beyond cART in "future eradication strategies", and particularly in cohorts of low response to cART. It would be great if it cured people but that isn't realistically what the company is expecting out of these trials. They are seeking to prove that it is materially better and should / could have a place in a future eradication strategy but those comments never intended to suggest that it would be standalone. If we set ludicrously high expectations beyond what the company is even hoping to achieve then you will be dissatisfied even if they are successful at what they set out to do.
Please be very careful about utilising a unnecessarily patronising tone, whilst I see your point is broadly well intended it often evokes a, excuse the pun, inflammatory response", I note your recent interactions here have been colourful at best, some would say inciteful. At any rate, lets get into point d). As per my previous post this afternoon, I have previously posted this article (or a similar one, I'd have to check) and discussed the sensitivity of the term cure in terms of HIV. As mentioned MM has also discussed. Agreed it is a contentious point, lets be honest, largely because of the trouble that science has had sorting this out in the past decade or 4. The term is as I understand utilised for the patients treated with chemo and stem cells?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7646673/
You're latter point is however valid and interesting. Management have been credited with insert preferred phrase (cure/ eradication etc) of Hep C according to Wikipedia and Biotron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIT225 . Wiki uses "cure". Are management being too cautious? Will we find out this quarter? Why is such an objective "ludicrous" ? I suspect one of the biggest risks to this stock is CRISPR who are not setting out to minimise the hiv condition. Unfortunately privately held as far as I can tell. In terms of dissatisfied, I think you need to read my posts in a little more detail, I've been arguing the benefits and marketability of a partially successful outcome over multiple posts.
In summary,
- I think you raise a good point of distinction between "the inference of clearance re clearance". However, in retort, the inference of management imo is on the side of clearance. So your argument is against the ''grain" of the report (again, imo). We can argue till the cows get up in regard to our relative regard for management, but its been a largely moot point, that been moot for the 6 months or so I've been following this stock and lets be honest this report undeniably illustrates improvement, which was the
inference as I understand it from say the AGM and prior. Obviously, this is suggestive of managerial progress in the key endeavours you reference (at least).
- More broadly, without seeking time consuming adversarial argument, you seem take exception to enthusiasm and have obviously sought to highlight in your latter points the same points that I had made in caveat already. Hence my comment around being in agreeance. Odd generally. Not that odd here. I suppose, I'd make the point, I'm very transparent with my position in the stock. I'm here to see the cards. I'm not day trading BIT. I'm ''hedged'' with unrealised gains if it I sell with losses. I expect my next action will be to buy (more), yet I'm seeking to highlight the unseen value of the stock purely out of interest and discussion. Also, as I say happy if the conversation leads me to change my mind. Its just that so far the only negative I see is timing.
I have no reservation in saying I think its a stock that has at the periphery trading momentum driving it's price (rather than value) in spite of the views of its core holders, not unusual, but more so than most. I think there's some money in the stock that likely gets in and out on big volume days for enthusiastic reasons or likely timing frustration in the alternate.
The result is a stock that trades imo a little like a long term PE fund with periodic liquidity points, its underappreciated because that is largely not recognised.
You'll note I've spoken at length about how I perceive a lot of the emotive issues on HC to be driven by an overexposure or miscomprehension of this stock. Obviously the nature of trading is inclined that way.
Unfortunately, every comment here is a little ''good for day'', on a good day, so its like you have to repeat your point hourly.
A cap raise is obviously a concern for anyone worried about that sought of requirement. You're not diluted if you buy right? (I acknowledge some will seek to sell and buy back and participate that way, not entirely without merit I guess, realise a loss. Being out of market for any period of time with an announcement to come caries risk though right?)
Sh*ts and giggles - I envisage a situation where management could be presently utterly baffled, thinking "we just (grossly inferred lol) that we've cleared reservoirs, we cant say we have cured it, we cant say we wont, but it looks like it (or could be) a first and the price went down on fears of a CR ? What the...". Equally one where they're out there negotiating... too soon? lol
Ultimately, as I say I'm appreciative, although a little perplexed with your response. Your point of distinction is noted, but flawed in its nature imo.
I'm in trouble for doing this on the computer on a Sunday night, but do find this stock far more interesting than TV tbh and hopefully my typing is better than usual. The phone based uploads are.... not easy.
Maybe you'd like to comment on other areas to advance the discussion, such as
- The value of partial clearance, or
- The potential for hypothetical clearance to be enhanced with altered dosage, duration, etc.
- The potential for this study to be representative of longer treatment duration, was that it's original purpose - ie demonstration of potential or outright success?
- Any thoughts on point 3 of the above statement.
- What the announcement will be this quarter?
- what of the c19 prelim?
- Are management intentionally understating performance to be cautious?
- Does the MM comment in regard to the development of a new class of drug not imply a perceived potential to commercialise the technology, if so, do you see it as implying an ultimately broad-spectrum solution?
Solid wordsmith hit out, apologies in advance WB
DYOR
