You're just highlighting how much you don't know,
@Sydvest.
To me, RAC is a big punt on the success of a drug, Bisantrene, that hasbeenaroundfor 50years, in clinics for over 40 years and in high-doses causes the same effects as Chemo.I agree about a big punt on success; welcome to the stock market, sweetheart. The drug has been around for a while, but it was never used in the right way (patients & dosing regimen). If you had been following the preclinical work that has been completed to date, you would understand why it is important as well as what the true mechanism of action was and why it was never used appropriately. A critical review of the 40 or so clinical trials that have been completed will give you some very interesting data that cannot be answered through the old anthracycline model. I've shared my analysis publicly which you can find via the advanced search function.
I think that a good starting point for you would be to educate yourself on how Merck overtook BMS in the race to bringing an anti-PD1 to market even though they were behind initially. I'll give you a hint: Merck used the drug in the right patients, while BMS did not. This story has a lot of similarities between the old and new Zantrene (for want of a better word) philosophy. I’m not interested in mouse studies if I’m going to put money on the table.Uh, ok. You do realise they completed a P2 trial two years ago, with a 100% response rate in one of the hardest to treat blood cancers in the world...? Without using the drug the right way... Lol.
The drug has got to show lower toxicity levels and equal or better cure rates than traditional cancer treatments. No it does not. There are no clinically viable FTO inhibitors, which means there are no safety parameters to compare to. Zantrene is first and best in class, so it will set the benchmark for safety within its class. It's not like a company developing an anti-PD1 compares their safety profile to an HER2 monoclonal. But you already knew that, right?
What are RAC doing this time that’s any different to the 40 something previous trials that never amounted to anything?Oh dear. I somewhat agree with you regarding the Sheba 2 trial, but you should really do your homework. The plan is to use Zantrene in patients most likely to respond and in a dosing protocol that enables the FTO inhibitory nature of Zantrene. The anthracycline model is dead. Very dead. The fact that you keep bringing it up and can't comprehend it highlights that you are actually the one 40-years in the past.
To me, there is a high chance that RAC will burn through their cash in this phase 2 trial and have nothing to offer at the end.Yeah, maybe, but that's investing, right.
As before, at 50c and some promising data, I’d take another look but the SP can easily come back under $1 in the near future.Mate, have you seen the markets lately? This thing could quite easily come back to 20c even with excellent data. I'm praying that it comes back that far. Sure, my initial investment might take a bit of a beating, but I'll buy more, and I think I'll be ok in the long run.
Note: something that I would like you to do in future is to evaluate or even consider the demonstrated cardioprotection potential of this drug. Because, of course, that is another completely separate, untouched field of oncology of enormous value that requires very careful consideration.
----
The reality is that you are not of the knowledge level required to determine whether something like RAC or Zantrene has value because you have simply not done your homework. There are many lines of evidence that make this very clear. I would recommend you evaluate what I have said carefully, and then reconsider your words, as the disinformation you spread highlights your ignorance and lack of rigor.
(20min delay)