Biotech / Medical | Provectus Pharmaceuticals Inc.


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: NTTG who wrote (11176)4/24/2012 3:39:57 PM
From: Howard Williams1 Recommendation   of 11976
 
NTTG, why do you say there is little room for iterative discussion in the SPA process. Your own link describes it as a potentially iterative process.

"FDA can reply by simply stating that they do not agree and provide their reasons. They do not have to provide an acceptable alternative and can put the onus straight back on the company."

Putting the onus back on the company is a far cry from a flat out "no" IMO.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: TheMaster who wrote (11177)4/24/2012 3:44:35 PM
From: NTTG2 Recommendations   of 11976
 
Sorry that you felt left out, was not my intention. But seriously, wouldn't you feel more comfortable meeting at a Cracker Barrel or Waffle House for lunch instead?

With gas prices so high I can imagine that some PVCT longs might worry about driving long distances, so please pick the one closest to where you live and I am happy to meet you there. I look forward to the lunch.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Howard Williams who wrote (11178)4/24/2012 3:51:47 PM
From: NTTG2 Recommendations   of 11976
 
In an iterative process both sides are working toward the center through mutual information exchange. If the FDA declines to provide feedback, PVCT is left shooting in the dark for the next application cycle...more like 'repetitive' than iterative in my book.

Meanwhile while the company is trying to second guess what they have to change in the application, the clock is ticking away.

And of course, NO is still an option

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: NTTG who wrote (11180)4/24/2012 4:10:03 PM
From: Howard Williams2 Recommendations   of 11976
 
>>In an iterative process both sides are working toward the center through mutual information exchange.<<

Sounds exactly like what is happening with PVCT and the FDA, in spite of your persistent efforts to cloud the issue.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Howard Williams who wrote (11181)4/24/2012 4:34:53 PM
From: NTTG3 Recommendations   of 11976
 
FDA met with the company for two post PII meeting, then declined the third requested meeting some time ago,, told PVCT they had all the information they needed.

The SPA process we were talking about today was addressing the process after the first 45 day review response, right? "While the review process could occur in as little as 45 days from the date of submission, we expect it will be an iterative process, and thus, more time may be required to work with the FDA on a study design agreement."

That is the repetitive processes yet to come, Dees was clear about that. It appears PVCT wanted something out of the third meeting but did not get the chance...now they have to write, but are also preparing investors for the real possibility that they will miss the mark with a SPA

Who is trying to cloud the issue here Howard?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: NTTG who wrote (11182)4/24/2012 4:45:38 PM
From: LT2011   of 11976
 
NTTG for the purpose of this post let's use May 1st for the SPA process. Let's say it takes a minium of 2 meetings, what would be a reasonable timeline for a SPA? Same question again if it took 3 meetings.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: LT2011 who wrote (11183)4/24/2012 5:24:04 PM
From: NTTG2 Recommendations   of 11976
 
No way to know at this point. Really depends on what PVCT tries to get into the trial protocol, and what they do after the first round decision. What I would be looking for:


- What are they looking at for dose schedules, and number of eligible lesions?
- How many patients patients are they planning to enroll in each arm of the trial?
- Are they seriously going to try to position for a 'bystander' effect in the labeling, if so how?

The first two are easily adjusted..the third could be a struggle

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: NTTG who wrote (11184)4/25/2012 3:54:33 AM
From: PCskibum1 Recommendation   of 11976
 
Who do you work for?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: PCskibum who wrote (11185)4/25/2012 8:14:16 AM
From: NTTG2 Recommendations   of 11976
 
I work in healthcare, who do you work for?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: NTTG who wrote (11186)4/25/2012 10:42:39 AM
From: TheMaster1 Recommendation   of 11976
 
Cracker Barrel

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.