allotment, page-92

rgc, I respect your qualifications and experience as a clinician. As an ex prof of physiology and pharmacology myself, I too can claim some expertise not in virology or hepatology but in drug science, the conduct of clinical trials and the way that drug companies operate (I was a consultant for one or two of them in my time).

As I have stated in earlier posts your contributions to this forum are welcome but like TP, I find your attitude, a little puzzling and, frankly, not particularly objective as befits discussions of a scientific nature.

Your constant references to the insignificance of the phase Ib/IIa trial is disingenuous. You more than most would realise the need to compare apples with apples. Thus, within the confines of the trial that was conducted, significance was achieved. You can't ask for more than that. Of course a larger trial, may have produced a different result but are you suggesting we shouldn't do the small trials at all? Should we forget walking before we can run?

Further, your comments seem to ignore the way that drug companies operate. They are strategic organisations in competition with eachother. Thus if one company or group corners the market in a particular class of drugs, another company wishing to compete will seek another class of drug to develop to target the same disease. In pharmacology as in all of nature, the unexpected is common and a new drug can fall over at any time. To suggest that there would be no commercial interest in the BIT family of compounds seems to pay no attention to this concept.

For Biotron, it's still early days. The doubtful ones will remain in that condition until we get some sign of commercial interest. If and when that comes, these current arguments will be irrelevant. I've seen nothing yet to shake my belief that that day is coming soon.