@MasterSocket: sorry I didn’t answer your question yesterday. I think it’s plausible a number of people especially those familiar with clinical trials, data etc could draw the conclusion you allude to.
it’s worth being attuned to some of the tricks of the trade in presenting clinical data (certainly not unique to this company I should point out). You want to show your medical device/drug is great? Easy. Do a literature search, select the results from other studies that are lousy (but great for your case) deselect the ones that are too good and therefore don’t help your cause. Create nice charts in excel chart wizard. Hey presto, your device or drug looks wonderful compared to whatever you want to compare it with. You just need to ask yourself why the company selected a decade old study in claiming they’ve doubled median survival (and even then still managed to misquote the study). (Slide 6)
looks like there’s little/no governance oversight here when it comes to accuracy & balance of data presentation. . No doubt punters will think this presentation is wonderful and I doubt ASIC would care about clinical data. Mind you this was a material release in which the clinical data forms the core of the IP & offering during a CR so it makes me reflect on whether some might go to ASX listing rule 3.1 in relation to the requirement for accuracy of information. One thing I’d be certain about is if any company took these sorts of data claims out to promote externally (to doctors) when it starts selling, would breach EFPIA code (if a drug) and although device promotional rules bit less stringent, likely breach relevant EU device directives.
finally: just because a biotech company has a regulatory approval for its product, that doesn’t give it carte blanche to say whatever it likes about the product.
DYOR. Good luck.
(20min delay)