Before anything, I will need to start with a disclaimer...
Any points below are of my personal opinions and observations. I won't be able to name names but you'll still get a sense of what transpired. No advice contained within these posts. I was not paid to go, I went off my own back. I am not sponsored (hey, if you want to sponsor me for any future conferences I'm not going to say no!). Just because one poster seems to think we have something of some half decent value, doesn't mean you should back up the truck.
Please Enjoy
I'll break this post up into three distinct parts, mainly to help me cover all the material and post it in chunks. If I were to do all three parts at once it would be too lengthy and it wouldn't be ready for at least another week, maybe more! So at a high level (I may need to change things or add a few topics in, but this is my plan):
PART 1The Experience
Highlights
Competition
Mri's
The Debate
PART 2The Rounds
An MPS Highlight
The Quote
Oh Tay Tay
We want more
PART 3Theatre time
The Main Stage
What's in it for me
I'll be back
ell the conference itself was held at the large Wien Messe Exhibition Centre in Vienna. I had planned in some spare time on this trip so I had almost a full day before to go for a long walk and take in the city. What a beautiful city it is.
The conference centre...and indeed it was a great place to tell our story...see the Theatre and Main stage sections in Part 3, coming to a Thread near you!I estimated there were close to 900 ppl there though one of the organisers told me that 1000 plus had registered to attend.The format was pretty good with a few subtle changes compared to last year's program.The good thing about last year was that they had a separate CTS (Clinical Trial Symposium, that's a fancy way of saying drugs/companies that are actually in trials at the moment), whereas this year it was fully incorporated as a concurrent session.
The advantages to PAR last year was there was a much more highlighted and focused session in putting competitors together in one room and lining them up one after another.The disadvantage of that format is that it extends the conference by a day, it costs more, it takes time (that session last year went on for like 5 hours), however, if you really want to compare the competition, that's the way to do it.This year it was wholly incorporated into the conference. The other disadvantage was that for some reason this was a concurrent session...so ppl had to choose it. Having said that, the room was totally full, there must've been about 350 ppl in the room or so, quite a few were standing despite it being a pretty big room.
It was a good atmosphere and the format was largely the same as last year overall apart for a few changes to the program.They had a reception night on one of the nights which was easy session to meet people, Yep, I met a few groups and one big KOL that night. (See Part 2 for more details).
Generally I thought there were some really good sessions. The science was heavy at times but somehow (maybe a displaced feeling) I found the science a touch easier to understand this year. There were still a heap of words I've written down in my notebook to look up and understand...the cell signalling was still crazy complex for me..but I did enjoy most of the sessions.It was also super to hear of the potential competition to us. What did they have to offer, what was their mode of action...how did they compare to us.We will cover that in the next competition section below.
Certainly there were a few highlights for me, the biggest ones were spending some precious time with the KOL's in the field. But at the same time there were some really nice researchers that I randomly met that were interested in what I had to say and to give me their opinions. I'll scatter more of these stories throughout the next couple of parts. I really felt I got a heck of a lot out of this conference.
Obviously another highlight was to hear PAR speak and present their data to their peers. But it was equally a chance for me to view the room and get a sense of how they were reacting and also to draw a comparison to last year. I'll cover this in more depth on Part 3.
Look certainly there is no way I can cover each and every presenter and each and every drug....to give you an exec summary is the better way for me to articulate my thoughts.
I cant say I heard each and every presso because there were a number of concurrent sessions and one had to choose which specific field to attend.
From all that I personally saw, the good news is that there is honestly so single drug out there, no tech...no other solution that comes close to us. Now sure that's my opinion but remember, I asked many randoms and the reactions and feedback I got was pretty similar. I even spoke to a guy from Novartis and I could tell that he was the competition and his stance was that their drug (LNA043) is also showing efficacy...but I did manage to convince him to at least come to our Main Stage presso...(unfortunately I could not follow up and see what he thought).
I have to do a separate post on it, it will be a while before I can get to it, but I think there is a fair bit of noise around GLP-1 specifically in the OA space. There was a separate presso on this and its potential application to OA of the knee...they are formulating a trial to look at an intra-articular shot of it...the crowd, through a couple of questions, wanted to give the speaker feedback on how there should be negatives that are covered that also need to be addressed and researched.
I also attended a session on microspheres and its delivery into fragmented cartilage spaces, I thought it was a good presentation and concept but when I looked over to a friend also attending the seminar, he just shook his head. I was curious. After the session I had a brief discussion with him and I understood why...the tech were microspheres but delivering corticosteroids, kinda like a slow targeted release. Yep, another attempted solution that wont hold a candle.
There was certainly no single drug out there that was gasping people's breath....turning heads, having people sit up in their chairs...
There were some fringe type solutions that might have involved stem cells...that might be showing some sort of minor efficacies in a Stage 1 or even animal studies...but they also didn't have the appeal...didn't have the data that was stunning or they had ages to go and were at the very beginning of their journey.
This is another important point I wanted to get out of such a conference, what's out there and how do we fare?
Ahh this has to be a favourite section of mine cos I'm always blown away at how smart these guys are, how broad based they are and how other experts look up to these guys and gals. Also the nature of their questions.
Now I'm not able to associate direct names to what was said...I also don't like to have a big ego....if I do, I keep it to myself...I don't like beating my own drum...if you guys like what I say and post...well that's really good...if you don't...well move on, there are plenty of fish out in the sea (just none that are as wondrous as Par in my opinion of course)...move on...if you want to state negatives, I'm all ears...in fact I encourage them...give us your fears and thoughts but do it professionally...and tell us what ideas you have, what would you do better....
After all ask yourself - Why are we here?
To learn
To further our drug and our company and...
To prosper
Why do you think I spend all my personal money going to some highly scientific seminar where I really have to listen hard to understand it...a lot escapes me....it's not just for fun...it's to learn, and to see where we fit in the scientific and the OA solutions world.What do others think about us?Where do we stand? PAR say they are good, but are they really good according to the rest of the Scientific and Research in OA community?Do we have scope?Are we on the right track?
We good?Now don't forget, this is a sci conference, it isn't a partnering or investment opportunity conference. So we do need that side too, ie the investing and funding and corporate side.But it is important to have BOTH...There will be no one that invests in us, that funds us, that follows us IF the science and the product doesn't make sense and has real risks to the patients or isn't a great drug.
The other side is also true. You can have as much science coming out of your ears and have the best product in the whole world, but my friends, you are dead in the water IF the investors don't bite....if there is no interest AND the science can't be duly articulated to the investment community.
Science coming out of one's ears?The investment community is SLOW.Look at how long it took companies like APPL and NVIDIA to become titans....it took ages,.. there wasn't MONTHS of lag...there were YEARS...decades.This is disappointing news to many investors...a lot of Retail investors have the wonderful advantage of nimbleness and little to no mandates.
They can get in when they like, they can ride out the dips ...they can get out when it suits them. Bigger investors do not have this flexibility always. They HAVE to get out when it hits a certain percentage vol of their portfolio...worse still, some are halted from even getting in as it is too small...or too foreign...We have no such binds...we are rope free....and despite it taking me literally years to realise...we can do BETTER RESEARCH than them!
How do I come to that idea?Cos I have heard feedback before. I don't write these posts to necessarily help you, though I do have a soft spot for the new and small investor to us...I would always love to help them with genuine thoughts and rationale and write here alongside the fact that I have skin in the game. But at the end of the day I research for me. I just share my thoughts and views, what you do with that is up to you. Just respond professionally with the right attitude and don't distract us with put downs that get personal. No need for that, you are wasting our time and your time. If you feel so angry and want to do something about it...go take that angry effort and research into something productive. Come back with some genuine arguments either way or find a distraction and come back when we start to genuinely move!
Is this you? Less pouty, less angry...think about what's coming, if it doesn't make sense...maybe time for a distraction, maybe time you leave, take a break? Just take a peek in about a year, maybe 18 months...Now I'm not an extrovert ... but when I'm fired up, there isn't a lot that can stop me specially once I develop some momentum...
Momentum...I want broad based evidence...yeah I love reading the novel mechanisms of iPPS in a book...I enjoy the Peer reviews...I love the patents that describe what's going on...but I want to shift and slip through the room and I want to show everyone from the small first time researcher right through to the top scientist...the top researcher.. Yes I'm not just interested in chatting to the top scientists and researchers in the room, but on the planet. I want to also chat to the new researchers, the younger guys that are fresh at it...sometimes hearing from them is novel and they have different ways of thinking....I want this broad spectrum to further my investment...to further your investment...to keep us safe, to keep our minds open to the full SWOT....
Strengths
Weakness
Opportunities and the all important...
Threats
I want to present our data and to be able to show them what I think looks good and get their opinions and thoughts and you know, just take my time and look at their expressions. To see their eyes focusing in on a Before and After Pentosan treatment...to see them processing what I'm saying and to hear their words of encouragement and verification is well, gold.
You are going to find and read a few stories and a few experiences I had the good fortune of having later in Parts 2 and 3. It's my true account of what I saw.
A shout out to Olga, she works for IAG - It's not an ad, but a genuine thank you, she put up some of PAR's MRI's as an example of what her company can do.
It was an impressive demo and showed the real 3D type to data plots that can be obtained to get a sense of the progression or in our case, the marked redaction of the inflammation. She talked to a packed room and spoke very well. I think that's the test, if one can speak to the science which is complex but at the same time convey in an interesting way the practical applications, well I reckon these are stand out pressos.
One of the new sections to this conference was a debate given by two researchers. It was done with a bit of fun with funny slides and some supporting material. It was a really good session, the topic was Short Term Steroids good or bad?
My point of this is that it was good of OARSI to try and mix it up a bit. A scientific conference is always going to appeal to a certain sort of crowd but I did find it entertaining and interesting when they did attempt to involve the crowd and make it ...well, not so dry!In terms of iPPS ..this stuff will sell itself through the results, but always better when the tech gets explained and ppl know how it works and how it compares to other drugs on the market that aren't half as good and have side effects. I really wonder one day in the future how much marketing we will need, or won't need as the drug's reputation will precede itself. I haven't really seen any or many advertisements for GLP-1 but look at the sales for example.
That concludes Part 1
In Part 2 we will make this more personal!
We will cover what I thought of Par's presentations and the material covered, we will look at some of the reactions and there will be some interesting surprises that occurred...watch out for a single quote that will summarise at least in my view, what indeed we are holding.
(20min delay)
