Pretty much everything you said is completely wrong. I repeat that it's quite concerning how unaware/off you are. I am assuming you're intelligent and that you know at least a bit about the biotech space as an IMU investor.
I've had this thought before but maybe we need to put together a marketing 1-pager focusing on the commercial opportunity, aimed at educating prospective investors in a quick way. I am as big a Dr T fan as anybody, but I don't think he does a great job at clearly communicating the "so what" and what makes RAC so exciting in his numerous appearances on youtube channels etc.
@LongTony covered a lot of it, but a few more points from me that make it exciting:
-Zantrene's 40+ trials didn't "amount to nothing". The drug has literally been approved for marketing in the 90s in France. So that should tell us that even if the 2
independent, blue sky opportunities involved with:
1.being the first and best FTO inhibitor which may be linked to curing about 30 cancers, and
2. being cardio-protective when used with cardio-toxic major standard of care drugs
fail, we should be able to fall back on a re-approval. Have any of IMU's candidates been de-risked to this extent? I think not. The way I see it is, we have a safety net to fall back on while taking 2 separate punts at immense opportunities.
The historical data can also be analysed and has, by posters like
@Mason14. For me, the light bulb moment was when he showed that Zantrene has higher complete response rates than some standard of care chemotherapeutics,
while being a far less potent chemotherapeutic. This tells us that yes we know that Zantrene works in humans, but that it was probably not working in the way a chemotherapeutic does. So this gives us some potential in-human efficacy clues of the FTO inhibition. Secondly, a more recent phase II trial in 2020 in Israel I believe, showed the highest response rates being in the cohort of patients whose variation of AML would have been most FTO-overexpressing. Another clue amongst many.
You can view the mouse trials as a way for the company to validate their hypotheses around the drug's FTO inhibition abilities. So far so good there. Not as a traditional mouse trial which is the precursor to a human safety trial. We already know the drug is safe and works
I guess by dismissing them as just mouse trials without seeing the big picture is what causes people to be sceptical about RAC. I suggest you do your research and go further down the rabbit hole.
