I have a little different way of seeing things here I think.
The consensus on this forum seems to be that the AIPAC results were not perfect but still pretty good and the Tacti results very encouraging.
And so the CR looks like a very poor deal for shareholders given the overall positive trial results. Which must mean management are incompetent or just don’t care about their loyal shareholders.
Go to the HC forum of any poorly performing microcap and ask posters their what is responsible for the malaise.
100% the answer will be poor management. The idea that whatever it is the microcap is trying to do really isn’t that great doesn’t seem to figure in the equation. It's all incompetent managements fault.
How about step one. Pull some strings or spend some money and have a read of the protocol paper for the AIPAC trial.
https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/fon-2018-0807The target HR was 0.667. A 50% improvement from control to active. So for example if the median survival in the control group was 6 months you were looking for a median survival in the treatment group of 9 months.
View attachment 2133343 The HR actually achieved was 0.93.
Where did the targeted HR 0.667 figure come from? This is the benefit that IMM believed was the minimally clinically important improvement necessary to demonstrate efti was worth taking into P3. Statistical significance here represents where clinical significance will lie.
The idea that the problem lay in the control group is a pretty strange one.
HR stands for Hazard Ratio. It is the ratio between two hazards. The treatment hazard and your counterfactual hazard – the control group. The counterfactual is not the hazard you have in your head for what you think typically happens with patients like these. It is what happens to the actual control patients in your trial.
But what about the positive results from the post-hoc subgroup analysis? This is PRR – Cvac story all over again.
So how about Tacti? Open label, with positive results from a post-hoc historical control group. It doesn’t get any weaker than this.
But what about the CEO’s positivity before the AIPAC results? Can anyone find an example of a microcap director not positive about upcoming important results in the history of the ASX?
Upcoming trial results are liquidity events. The more volume the more interest there is. It’s the CEO’s job to create that interest.
People can sell at good prices with good volume knowing that there will be a good chance of buying back cheaper. But what if the results were actually good? It doesn’t matter – bet with the apriori odds – mostly they will not be. Picking winners is a mugs game.
Ask yourself a question.
How many people who contributed to the $12m raised do you think paid their lunch money to download the AIPAC protocol paper which is necessary to properly contextualise the results from the trial.
My guess is none. For the reason that understanding the results is completely irrelevant to trading penny stocks.
(20min delay)