| | | "The decision to go 'virtual' obligates the plan to a 'cash and carry' based pool of resources, no vested interest...poor quality performance."
>how many clinical trials have in total been launched and completed?
>were those trials executed at a slower pace? higher cost? with less patients? than in market
>how many clinical trials are undergoing?
>how many sites have been selected for those clinical trials? US: how many Australia: how many
>were those sites "minor"?
>Is Moffit Tampa Cancer center, a minor center for research on melanoma?
Were the clinicians and teams selected under-performing vs what you see in the clinical trial market?
Were the managers/Lead clinicians/ lead investigators unknown/under rated/over rated?
"This is not a lean company when you consider compensation for productivity, it is actually quite bloated."
Compensation for productivity is not a benchmark applicable to Lean. If you want to talk about money, talk about the overall costs vs productivity and we can talk - this though is still not about Lean.
If each FTE at PVCT had given up 55K of their 7 figure compensation, I dare say an outstanding 'regulatory' expert could have been found. Should have been a small potatoes decision for MGT
how do you know they do not have an expert for regulatory? how do you know Eric Watcher has not being helped on that front, connections wise, i.e from the board or previous connections.
Their plan has nothing to do with getting a drug through the development pipe,
Why then burning funds on other indications? liver, skin etc..
It is all about licensing and hoping the partner knows how to get the job done...
80% of Biotech companies, post phase 2, engage in searching for a Licensing partner to support the cost of the phase3 trial. So what you're saying here doesn't make any sense. |
|
