Hello GringoDoc: ZONA
Any mention of the 'R' word directly or indirectly through definition? If ZONA is going to take their 'data' and pick out retrospectively a subgroup that 'worked' to collect further data on them, that would be definitive. To my recollection, phase III studies that were initiated on retrospective data have something around 80% rate of being statistically non-significant, with no major significance ever found to my experience (mostly watching biologicals, not synthesized drugs). And that is highly contingent on performing a valid study (double-blind, multiple centers, hypothesized endpoints that were confirmed statistically (not selected retrospectively), etc.). In short, beating a dead horse, yes you can separate it into a pile of horse bones and horse flesh, but separately or together, you still do not have a horse. ZONA may pretend to be fishing for a whale (in a farm pond), but something is fishy with that whopper. Fingerpointing at SGP and wait another year and more study looks like an exercise in futility. Assuming validity in the original studies, but a placebo-like efficacy if I recall, then anything retrospective to that data is highly likely to fail, and the FDA bureaucracy will be more efficient at pegging the matter correctly in the next few days than another year of ZONA living off prior dollars collected from public investors.
If ZONA is 'R', I would value them at cash...a possible short to 5. Not a bad position from 10 in less than a year.
Best regards,
m |
