"... I would welcome correction of the factual errors I made in this post..."
I don’t think anyone can "correct" any factual
errors per se, as noone can really prove that such errors are even present in the stateent. Assuming the statement is gased only on whats in the public domain, I’d be keen to hear more on two points:
a) Why do you see RAC as closest to CU6? Why not DXB, ILA, NUZ, or even OPT?
b) How do you rate RAC as
lower clinical risk than CU6 in particular? I get the RC110 data, but RAC has only just dosed its first patient with
RC220, in a Phase 1 trial. Is that because you are certain that this will work?
Not saying you’re wrong - just that I hadn’t factored in those angles. My take (from a mix of guesswork and publicly available information):
- CU6 = low clinical risk, big upside (10x in 2–3 yrs) based on diagnostics alone.
- RAC = moderate risk, but huge upside (30x in 5 yrs) if RC220 is proven to be cardioprotective that does not blunt Doxo's cancer killing effects.
Genuinely curious to hear more. I think making a clear case may help people see the investment case much more clearly.
(20min delay)