Sorry my post included some rambling which was probably confusing. I was referring to previous pure gold posts from Bpharma who was claiming early on that the low dose cohorts were in the effective dose range and that the higher cohorts were to establish a toxic dose, which is f'n crazy of course. At the time we finally hit the higher cohorts and they proved safe I was feeling pretty excited.
My excitement was tempered after they unexpectedly called the trial early and released the disappointing plasma concentrations. The urine concentrations however were a silver lining, and I'm happy it's not a dead end.
They knew the animal models suggested an effective dose rate of ~50mg/kg from the outset and yet still designed the trial to go up to 200mg/kg. I think part of the reason it was called early was that it was obvious from the trend in plasma concentration they were not going to achieve the desired levels, and they were already at great urine levels. Why chew through more time and money when they knew they were going to make a small pivot. Maybe the ethics committee also advised them not to push further if they no longer had a good reason, who knows.
i know I'm coming across as the downramper now. But look through my previous posts and threads - I think the potential here is incredible. But I am a bit disappointed in the phase 1 results and feel that management aren't being completely upfront. Start asking James some difficult but reasonable questions and he'll ghost you.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)