AdamF's logic for Perifosine not being approved is based on KERX not having a $300 million market cap, not the science at all. I believe DSCO didn't have the required Market Cap and look what they finally just did. This is a totally bogus argument, especially considering the fact that AEZS has partnerships for Perifosine with some companies who's market caps go to billions I believe.
AdamF has been a tools for the shorts and been proven wrong nearly as often as right. There is no doubt Jeremy Richard's article on Seeking Alpha went overboard in many ways, most notably in terms of how quickly results should be known. His 2 weeks should have been 2 months and even then it isn't certain.
I believe if you look at what the company originally estimated, then see the estimated completion shifting a quarter you need to recognize that people have to be living longer for this to happen, especially when you consider that about 25 additional patients were added to the trial.
Many people make the mistake of thinking that oversubscribing trials lengthen them as it takes longer to finish the enrollment. On the contrary, by definition they have to shorten them. I say this because of the added 25 people if only one person dies the 360th death will come when the 359th patient in the original group died. In our case, it's nearly 8 months since the last person entered the trial, of the 25 people added, at this point statistically over half of them should be dead, let's say it's 15. I don't know if on average 1 person is dying a day, or every 2 days, or 3 days, but I doubt if it's more than 1 a day. If it's one a day the trial would be shortened by 15 days from the added patients. To me the combination of delaying the completion and oversubscribing the trial is an indication that the drug's doing quite well, the only other possibility that would explain it is that the Placebo Effect is sustaining life dramatically, however placebo's were used in the earlier trial and didn't benefit the control group, if the control group isn't suddenly living perhaps more than a month longer then indicated by historical data, the drug should be working far better than the 2 months benefit needed for approval.
Frankly AEZS and KERX have had a lot of good and bad press recently, both were overdone. Investors ought to look at the data from prior trials, review what can be found on the website find other DD sources of their own and make up their own minds. I think if you do you'll see an opportunity, but no guarantee.
Gary |
