Originally posted by amongko
Fair summary of 2018, solid phase 2 trial results, successful presentation of data - understood and acknowledged by medical experts, validation of BIT225 development so far. BIOTRON has captured the attention of the wider (and financially superior) group in 2018.
One thing to note in the letter is that it takes time to convince big Pharmas that your product is worth investing in, these Pharmas need to understand why the drug is working the way it is, how it's unique and be 100% certain that they will be making a sound investment. With that requires alot more work and further tests to progess towards eliminating any doubts/concerns from potential investors/Pharmas.
What we and everyone (holders and non-holders) else following BIT know for certain is that BIT225 has a significant impact. The key now is to answer questions that potential Pharmas may have - that is done through progessive testing, presenting data to eliminate uncertainty and build a stronger case for BIT as a worthy investment option within the pool of drug developers.
The road may be a little more stretched than some may like (human nature), including myself, but slow and steady often leads to the desired outcome.
Daily charts and sentiment changes have no impact on the work in progress and final outcome, be patient and get rewarded. All IMO.
Hope you all have a great week and GLTAH.
A fair summary of the bull case for BIT.
The problem for BIT is how to collect the data that they will need to convince a large pharma company to fork out the money to take BIT225 to a phase 3 trial. BIT225 failed to show any positive effect on the normal gold standard of plasma viral load. They have some weak exploratory data that suggests that BIT225 is affecting sCD163 levels, but they have no data that this is clinically important, nor how long the effect lasts. They have no data that BIT225 has cleared HIV from any reservoir cell population, actually no data at all that BIT225 is doing anything useful at all in patients. They need compelling data that BIT225 is helping patients to get a pharma partner on board.
The problem for BIT is the cost of running a new large phase 2b trial to collect this data is likely beyond their ability and resources. Even if they manage to run such a trial and get compelling positive results, they don't have a lot of time left on their patents. We end up back at my initial assessment that BIT225 was a good idea 15 years too late.
