Evgen Pharma Share Discussion Threads

[dave444] 20/9/2018 05:38

You cannot have a placebo group in a life threatening disease - it is unethical

[nico115] 19/9/2018 22:35

Haha Then stop posting nonsense Why would u deramp ?

[francisgalton] 19/9/2018 22:26

I never said that there should have been a placebo group. But one cannot ignore the fact that there was not one.

This is a side distraction though from the issue of commerciality that you are refusing to address.

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 22:19

Oh and have you accepted that you don't have a placebo group in oncology trials?

[francisgalton] 19/9/2018 22:18

Address the points made, not the poster.

You have still failed to give me even one example to prove commerciality.

You are still focusing on the science and not the commerciality.

I am not trolling. I am just not unquestioningly lapping up the purported wisdom of the gods on this board.

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 22:17

Let me ask you a question since you are the expert. How much do you think this drug will cost?

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 22:15

I repeat, being a troll is beneath you.

These patients are terminal; a 20% response is spectacularly good.

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 22:02

PS its beneath you to turn into a troll...

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 22:02

Oh dear. I suggest you do your research first. This is being used in terminal patients who don't have any other hope. In such a circumstance 20% is very impressive. Ultimately the drug will be used in earlier patients where it will have a much better chance of success.

[francisgalton] 19/9/2018 21:53

You are looking at this from a scientific / patient point of view. Any patient if told they would have a 20% chance of 6 months would say yes. Any doctor would love to offer that to their patients if there was no other choice.

However, you need to look at this from the point of the regulator, the NHS, insurers etc. and you are failing to do this. The fact is that the vast majority of patients taking EVG's drug (80% of them) will have no significant benefit at all from the drug. 80% failed the primary endpoint. For the very small minority of 20% who do benefit, the benefit of 6 months is nice but what real world purpose does it actually serve.

As I say, for 80% there is no real benefit at all.

What healthcare provider would fund that in any blockbuster way?

If you disagree, give me real life examples of the same. Something with at least an 80% failure rate and limited benefit that the regulators approval and which gets blockbuster sales.

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 21:47

Oh dear you don't have a clue about clinical trials do you francis.

A troll from the IMM thread I'm afraid....

[timbo003] 19/9/2018 21:41

>>>francis

If you were suffering from metastatic cancer, would you be prepared to go onto a placebo arm of a three month clinical trial?

Thought not

You never run oncology studies with a placebo arm.

[francisgalton] 19/9/2018 21:23

Nobby Just 20% of patients met the primary endpoint of disease stabilisation for 6 months. In today's healthcare world, that's hardly anything to sing about. Also no placebo comparison. I'd like to see you put the justification forwards to NICE on that one.

Nico A total fabrication. I have never messaged anyone on advfn, ever. The only thing that your post demonstrates is that you are a liar.

[nico115] 19/9/2018 21:21

Francis sent me a pmHe's negative cos he wants us lower to buy Ignore him !!

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 19:59

>> francis

You should have come to hear the oncologist present. He was most definitely not underwhelmed by the results......but I guess you know more about breast cancer than him!

[francisgalton] 19/9/2018 17:25

It's the same broker, Vadim, who pumped Immupharma before their share price collapsed after mixed trial results.

Not anyone whose word should be hung onto.

[apfindley] 19/9/2018 17:19

Haha being pumped? Where?? What you mean us, you wanted to buy, but it has risen when you hadn't anticipated. The target price here is upwards of £1.00Read the note from a few months ago. All the info was in there. Looks like you missed the low point.... Silly boy, good luck DE-ramping. .

[francisgalton] 19/9/2018 16:00

I see this is being pumped.

All I see here is underwhelming interim trial results from the STEM trial. I'm not expecting the final trial results later this year to be any better than the interim trial data released in June and I don't see why anyone could rationally expect otherwise.

Pump.

Dump to follow.

[nico115] 19/9/2018 15:40

Bought some EvgFeedback from conference is fantastic No bull book like last time Twitter gang will pump em as we get nearer to DecWe got to 27p last time and this data is more important Tgt price 35p

[timbo003] 19/9/2018 10:37

I wish investigators would be consistent with their units when quoting doses

mg/dose would be best (rather than micromol/dose) and sulforaphane equivalents would be better than Glucoraphanin or SFX-01

Out of frustration, I have compiled a quick crib sheet for easy reference when conversions have to be done:







………………………

[supernumerary] 19/9/2018 09:30

Thanks guys - useful background. Should anyone get a chance to raise the COPD trial with them, I'd be interested to hear their views. I remain supremely cautious with all biotech...

[nobbygnome] 19/9/2018 09:01

>> supernumerary

I presume your TLY comment is genuine😜! Completely different situations, TLY in a long term buy whereas EVG is a short term buy.

My concern was more of a theoretical issue rather than a real one. After all there is no evidence of problems with side effects. You have to understand that inflammation goes hand in hand with virtually every disease. For example Alzheimer's is a very good case in point where there is increasing evidence that inflammation is a major part of the problem and a drug like an anti-TNF may well be beneficial. So the fact that sulforaphane hits various inflammatory pathways is overall definitely beneficial.

[timbo003] 19/9/2018 08:19

I had forgotten about that COPD clinical and it was not specifically mentioned or discussed at the meeting, but I note that the doses used were quite a bit lower than those used in the ongoing Evgen trials, see below:


COPD study:
25 micromoles (4.4mg) and 150 micromoles (26.6 mg) per day Sulforaphane


Evgen STEM study:
92.3 mg per day Sulforaphane

………;……̷0;……R30;

[supernumerary] 19/9/2018 00:22

Nobby - more or less 'ridiculously undervalued' than TLY would you say?

Did you or anybody else ask what they thought about the failed trial? Link for reference: As I've already posted, it would be good to have a scientific view on this...

Ref your Pt 4 - can you expand a bit? As written it sounds as though you have/had concerns about off target effects (I presume that means side-effects?) and the prof didn't deny they were present, but thought they were essential to the treatment. It's not clear from that write-up that she assuaged whatever fears you had. Some colour on the issue would be useful.