I'm sticking with the comments I made in my article, pmrider. I understand what YOU are saying and I have already agreed in my article with the possibilities of most of what you are saying, but you are not saying what the press release said. You are saying things the press release did not say.
.
That press release states reduction numbers based on comparisons between treated and untreated mice, not comparisons between treated at 21 days vs treated at 35 days. You could be right, I hope you are right that there was tumour killing and shrinkage happening and not just the slowing of growth.
.
With respect to the assessment of tumours in mice at 21 days using 3D MRI, yes, of course it's possible, even probable that it was done but, again, the press release does not reference the scans and there is no resulting comparison of before and after treatment. The best we can say is that the results you discuss are not stated in the PR but they could be available and could be exceptional. Also note that regardless of the availability of 3D MRI, the Texas mice had autopsies performed on them in order to accurately count the tumours.
.
As far as I'm concerned, we have no idea of the relative influence of the growth suppression attributes of Herceptin in those mice compared to the expanded cancer killing effects induced by the Herceptin. We just don't know. It wasn't stated.
.
But, most importantly, I'll ask the big questions. With prolonged treatment, would the mice live or die? Would the cancer eventually kill the mice? Would the killing effect be sufficient to allow those mice to live a normal life expectancy? In other words, would BT2111 be considered a cure for the HER2 cancer in those Texas mice? If the answer is yes then BT2111 is a really big deal! But Herceptin has never been considered a cure. Since this would be such a huge development, why didn't the press release differentiate the relative effects of cancer killing vs cancer growth suppression? The implications are huge which is why I have been saying, be careful here!
.
But as near as I can see, the company is staying away from saying some of these things. The press release said that at 35 days the BT2111 mice had an average of 28 tumours and the other mice had 85 tumours at 35 days. And at 35 days, the tumours in the treated mice were half the size of the tumours in the untreated mice.
.
Speaking strictly about BT2111 mice, nowhere, not once, did the press release say that the tumours in the BT2111 mice at 35 days were smaller or than they were at 21 days.
.
I hope they were smaller, they may have been smaller, but the press release didn't say it. We may have had reduced acceleration of growth but we may not have had negative acceleration, otherwise known as deceleration. Negative acceleration is an actual slowing down and decreased acceleration is a slowing of the rate of increase. There can a big difference between the two.
.
Of course, investors can believe what they want. And I am not saying that the killing effect was not significant. I am a BTI investor after all. It's in my interest that the killing effect would be dominant and the tumours in the Texas mice would shrink to some point where normal life expectancy could be expected. My reading of the efficacy of Herceptin is that it is not a cure. The press release didn't come close to suggesting that and didn't even compare 21 days to 35 in the mice, nor did it come close to suggesting actual tumour shrinkage, just reductions when compared to the other mice.
.
I'm sticking to my thoughts on this but I hope the rest of you are right. But why didn't BTI say it?
.
jdstox
.
ps. Some of you take great delight in the possibility that I may be wrong. You might consider the notion that being right is the most important thing in investing, not the petty game of choosing sides because of your feelings. When Texas Tech releases a paper on this, I hope they show a huge killing effect and that they have some supporting numbers. So far, nobody has talked about it except we few here and we are hardly authorities.