Hi Ajostu Here's how I see it. I don't really care if a director...

Hi Ajostu

Here's how I see it. I don't really care if a director is buying. They can be wrong. Neither do I work any statistical models. Let's just keep it simple.

If the result is No efficacy at all - 4c will be a miracle. I'd be looking at 0-1c (under $15m market cap) because the confidence in the drug will be gone for all indications.

Despite the risk, I've bet on NEU because (TonyIndo does a much better job, but here's my take):
1. Pre-clinical evidence is good to great.
2. Human trials (TBI) with nnz-2566 have been ongoing for years and not yet stopped due to futility by the Data Committee for that trial.
3. IGF-1 trials on humans already showed efficacy (albeit limited). We know nnz-2566 works better than IGF-1 on mouse models, so extrapolating that to humans gives us at least a chance of the same efficacy outcome.
4. Rett trial secondary measures changed after Treagus came on board, so I have more confidence that trial design is right to catch any efficacy measures if they exist.
5. A Data Committee gave the go-ahead for the Rett trial to continue after the first low-dose cohort was completed - again there was no futility indication given.
6. Parental and carer feedback on 'social media' suggests at least something may be working for at least some patients - and given all of the above, increases our probability of efficacy success.
7. Rett has no existing medication - so even a little bit of efficacy indication will lead to more trials - the FDA will only write off the drug if there is NO EFFICACY indication at all amongst the dozens of outcome measures. Not likely given the above.
8. Richard Treagus is a living legend

Seeing the logic above and at risk of egg on my face (which I'll gladly accept), I am thinking that the probability of efficacy indication is much higher than the 'textbook' 30% - I am looking at around 70% plus....

The fear factor is high people, but fortune favors the brave

'Braveheart' Jim