Acceptable TakeOverPrice, page-72

Thanks for your detailed response bp. Nice to see somebody willing to engage in an intelligent conversation and provide supporting information rather than just "waahhhh. The big man is mean".

You may have taken my post a little out of context. I was attempting to provide a very high level response to the assertion that somehow a bunch of phase 1 and phase 2 trials against various viruses magically averts the need to conduct a phase 3 trial before seeking approval to market and deploy. Please also consider that I was responding to a poster who considers a discussion which includes terms like "phase 2 trial" to be "Unlicensed Medical Advice". My explanation was by necessity a little simplistic however please consider my comments in the context of what and who I was responding to.

I note that you said in your response "there will absolutely be phase 3 trials" so it seems that we are in complete agreement that the next step is a phase 3 trial assuming the data from current trials supports it. I think we are also in agreement that the quantum of phase 1 and 2 participants doesn't negate the process and phase 3 which was no only real contention intended in the post!

So given the context of what my post was responding to:

1. I agree that the collective data helps add to the overall knowledge of how BIT225 acts on the human body and consequently on various viruses. That of coarse being the purpose of running so many trials with so many different cohorts. It doesn't however negate the need to run a phase 3 going forward as the OP suggested and that was my point.

2. Based on 009 results and subsequent company comments Biotron are hoping to move forward with a partner into phase 3 HIV trials assuming appropriate data from 010 and 011 and commercial interest. Commentary on each trial shows that they are clearly seeking to find niche cohorts to target first which makes sense. 009 results suggested ART non-responders were a likely cohort. 010 and 011 may expand on this. Given this, moving forward we hope to see a phase 3 trial presumably focused on specific HIV cohorts. Again, I fail to see how any data collected to date in prior trials negates this underlying necessity. Data collected simply helps them decide on what to target and how to design the phase 3. I'm assuming that you aren't suggesting otherwise.

3. Remembering the context that put forward by the OP was that the quantum of phase 1 and 2 participants somehow added up to an automatic phase 3 tick, ie 1 + 2a + 2b + 1 + 2a = 3, my comments were trying to provide an extremely simple explanation which explains why you can't simply aggregate trial participants from various loosely related trials, mix them together onto a phase 3 certificate and ask the teacher to put a smiley stamp on it as if this was enough to go to market.

I also agree that there may still be future potential for BIT225 for HCV but lets be honest, its on the back burner and has been for many years. As I said, it works but despite endless attempts to find a partner to commercialize it there have been no takers due to commercial deals and solutions which preceded BIT225 outcomes. I also agree that future drug resistance could reopen doors however we are yet to see that so its not a hear and now thing. Never say never but that isn't likely to play into an SP action any time soon or achieve the 126 bags that the OP was quoting.

In retrospect given the OP I agree that it would have been smarter to provide a more concise response which the poster would have understood. Something like "Yeah but nuhhh" probably would have sufficed in this instance.

Anyhow, thanks for the comments. I appreciate it.