Anyone who can read that news release and come away thinking that efficacy was a minor issue in this trial, either needs glasses or some reading comprehension courses.
Most people with ordinary reading comprehension skills can understand that the word "if" is a conditional and doesn't promise anything.
And, of course, my original point was not that demonstrating safety was vastly, vastly more important than demonstrating efficacy, but that the nature of the trial, as in all phase I trials, was skewed very heavily towards testing safety and not efficacy. Sure, the efficacy results were not encouraging, but neither was the trial anything close to being a full-blown test of efficacy.
05-04-2012 12:22 PM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
Most people with ordinary reading comprahension skills can understand that the word "if" is a conditional and doesn't promise anything.
And, of course, my original point was not that demonstrating safety was vastly, vastly more important than demonstrating eficacy, but that the nature of the trial, as in all phase I trials, was skewed very heavily towards testing safety and not efficacy. Sure, the eficacy results were not encouraging, but neither was the trial anything close to being a full-blown test of eficacy.
come on, do you really think that replicel were unconcerned and took a laid back approach to efficacy? they needed it to go well this time so as not to mess up their stocks, proving safety would not impress anyone and they knew it.
05-04-2012 12:54 PM
gmonasco
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJJJrS
When the CEO appears on interviews claiming that they fully expect to exceed >20% growth, when a bunch of websites and analysts are paid to promote the product as a cure for hair loss, and then results are released which show absolutely no tangible growth, of course people aren't going to be positive about the results and Replicel.
Would any hair loss sufferer be better off if David Hall had never expressed any optimism, and as a result Replicel had failed to obtaining funding for clinical trials and another avenue of research went unexplored?
Quote:
Yeah, I'm sure companies are going to stop their research based on what's written on Bald Truth Talk.
We may not think it - but what we say on these forums reaches further than we'd expect - we all know how small things on the internet can go viral worldwide in a matter of hours. What's saying we havent done the same with this entire burst of interest in the recent Replicel results?
These threads receive hundreds of thousands of views, there's a colossal community out there that is clearly interested in hair loss research, albeit most of them remaining in silence.
05-04-2012 01:38 PM
The Alchemist
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmonasco
Sure, the efficacy results were not encouraging, but neither was the trial anything close to being a full-blown test of efficacy.
I agree 100%
05-04-2012 02:03 PM
john2399
Everyone but replicel is bugging out about efficacy and regrowth. Like i really dont think replicel would continue on to the next phase if they didnt think it's going to have twice as much regrowth with more time and fixing. Why the hell would replicel want to waste money and precious time if they think the efficacy is going to be 3 percent or what not. People need to stop freaking about this because replicel seems calm and pleased to stay on track and be the treatment for the future.
05-04-2012 02:12 PM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Alchemist
I agree 100%
again, efficacy was more important to the then proving safety.
They needed those results to be much more promising.
05-04-2012 02:12 PM
ccmethinning
Quote:
Originally Posted by john2399
Everyone but replicel is bugging out about efficacy and regrowth. Like i really dont think replicel would continue on to the next phase if they didnt think it's going to have twice as much regrowth with more time and fixing. Why the hell would replicel want to waste money and precious time if they think the efficacy is going to be 3 percent or what not. People need to stop freaking about this because replicel seems calm and pleased to stay on track and be the treatment for the future.
Because that is their job. Because it isn't their money they are spending on the trials, or hefty salaries, or stock pumping, or sporting event suites, it is investor money. They need to maximize shareholder (founder) value as much as possible to sell the company to a potential suitor. There will likely be improvement in phase 2 results (how much remains to be seen) and added credibility to phase 2 results, which will raise the company's value. But if it doesn't succeed, it is no skin of their backs. David Hall will just be another $350,000 richer, and Hoffmann and McElwee will pocket some decent change too.
05-04-2012 02:21 PM
ccmethinning
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman91
again, efficacy was more important to the then proving safety.
They needed those results to be much more promising.
No, efficacy wasn't more important than proving safety. But efficacy was a whole lot more important than many here are making it out to be.
This is a tiny little public company with funding problems and competition (ARI, Histogen, Follica, etc). Because of this, they had to design the trial to produce as much success as they could in a phase 1 safety trial to develop investor interest. This isn't some massive university cancer research department with government funds where they can just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. They needed results, and they definitely underwhelmed.
Over the past couple months, the company completed offerings worth a couple million dollars or so at $1.50/share (which at that time was well below market value). Now market value for shares is $1.27. They are going to have to sell more of their interest for less money now. Not to mention, whoever it was that bought in at $1.50 has to be pretty pissed off to be sitting underwater now and might not throw any more money at the company.
05-04-2012 02:37 PM
jman91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmethinning
No, efficacy wasn't more important than proving safety. But efficacy was a whole lot more important than many here are making it out to be.
This is a tiny little public company with funding problems and competition (ARI, Histogen, Follica, etc). Because of this, they had to design the trial to produce as much success as they could in a phase 1 safety trial to develop investor interest. This isn't some massive university cancer research department with government funds where they can just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks. They needed results, and they definitely underwhelmed.
Over the past couple months, the company completed offerings worth a couple million dollars or so at $1.50/share (which at that time was well below market value). Now market value for shares is $1.27. They are going to have to sell more of their interest for less money now. Not to mention, whoever it was that bought in at $1.50 has to be pretty pissed off to be sitting underwater now and might not throw any more money at the company.
