Frequency Therapeutics — Hearing Loss Regeneration

[Zugzug]

I took it a different way. If, for instance, the problem was fluid overload then the problem is closer to a mild iatrogenic hydrops in which there would be residual inflammation in the "disturbed" area.

How does the fluid overload hypothesis explain the placebo group improving or 1x performing the best? Is there a massive potential difference between a treatment injection and a placebo injection in terms of an induced hydrops phenomena?

I'd also be really surprised if the safety risk of inflammation was there and they pushed for four injections. While I think the 7 day number is stupid and unscientific in terms of the drug working efficiently, there's no way they didn't consider safety first and foremost.

 

[FGG]

How does the fluid overload hypothesis explain the placebo group improving or 1x performing the best? Is there a massive potential difference between a treatment injection and a placebo injection in terms of an induced hydrops phenomena?

I'd also be really surprised if the safety risk of inflammation was there and they pushed for four injections. While I think the 7 day number is stupid and unscientific in terms of the drug working efficiently, there's no way they didn't consider safety first and foremost.

I believe they said that multiple injections had a negative effect whether you got drug or not (fluid effect) but it was even worse if you got more drug (there are a number of reasons this could be the case, everything from as simple as solutes in the injections to something biochemical, they don't have to know why yet, just that there is an observable effect).

Combine that with the inconsistencies and you have a mess of a Phase 2a to interpret.

 

[Zugzug]

I believe they said that multiple injections had a negative effect whether you got drug or not (fluid effect) but it was even worse if you got more drug (there are a number of reasons this could be the case, everything from as simple as solutes in the injections to something biochemical, they don't have to know why yet, just that there is an observable effect).

Combine that with the inconsistencies and you have a mess of a Phase 2a to interpret.

I didn't know that. Good to know. Yeah, there's so much going on.

@Diesel is right that it's basically impossible to make sense of without individual data.

 

[Chad Lawton]

10% improvement in WR scores only in 34% of patients. Nothing for the audiogram. It's true current treatments for hearing loss don't treat the condition at all, but FX-322 is not the game changer it was made out to be.

This is completely false and there is A LOT of untrue things being said on here. Personally, I think they did a terrible job of explaining/wording the data. Another way they could have put it is that 83% of patients with moderate SNHL that were treated with FX-322 in the single dose study saw 45%+ improvement in word scores. Here are the facts for the single dose study and here is the link to their presentation and you can confirm all of this yourself.

https://investors.frequencytx.com/static-files/4a540e6b-b160-4e35-b487-5c82d264103b

Of the 15 patients that were treated with FX-322, 9 of them had only mild SNHL with word recognition scores typically 45+ out of 50 so these patients had little room to improve. Of the remaining 6 patients who had moderate SNHL, almost all of them had nearly 50% improvements in word recognition scores other than one and that one patient still had a 30% improvement. This can be calculated by using slide 38 of the presentation. The number 10% is used because it is the minimum requirement to be considered clinically significant and the hurdle they need to surpass to get this drug to market.

Page 40 of the presentation also states:

"Three patients who had durable improvements in intelligibility also had pure tone audiometry improvements of 10-15db at the highest frequency tested (8kHz)."

So audiogram improvements did occur for half of the patients who had moderate SNHL that also saw a significant improvement in word scores.

What we can conclude from this single dose study is that FX-322 doesn't provide much benefit to those with mild SNHL but provides a significant benefit to those with moderate SNHL. That is life changing for those people and big $$$ because no other treatment on the market exists. I am loading up on the stock because of this.

 

[Philip83]

Is there anywhere to read the individual results of the Phase 1b – 111 study?

 

[Zugzug]

This is completely false and there is A LOT of untrue things being said on here. Personally, I think they did a terrible job of explaining/wording the data. Another way they could have put it is that 83% of patients with moderate SNHL that were treated with FX-322 in the single dose study saw 45%+ improvement in word scores. Here are the facts for the single dose study and here is the link to their presentation and you can confirm all of this yourself.

https://investors.frequencytx.com/static-files/4a540e6b-b160-4e35-b487-5c82d264103b

Of the 15 patients that were treated with FX-322, 9 of them had only mild SNHL with word recognition scores typically 45+ out of 50 so these patients had little room to improve. Of the remaining 6 patients who had moderate SNHL, almost all of them had nearly 50% improvements in word recognition scores other than one and that one patient still had a 30% improvement. This can be calculated by using slide 38 of the presentation. The number 10% is used because it is the minimum requirement to be considered clinically significant and the hurdle they need to surpass to get this drug to market.

Page 40 of the presentation also states:

"Three patients who had durable improvements in intelligibility also had pure tone audiometry improvements of 10-15db at the highest frequency tested (8kHz)."

So audiogram improvements did occur for half of the patients who had moderate SNHL that also saw a significant improvement in word scores.

What we can conclude from this single dose study is that FX-322 doesn't provide much benefit to those with mild SNHL but provides a significant benefit to those with moderate SNHL. That is life changing for those people and big $$$ because no other treatment on the market exists. I am loading up on the stock because of this.

My friend, you are very late to the party. We have beaten this topic to death to the point of computing p-values for the probability of an individual randomly improving WR by that much.

What @Jurger is correctly referring to is the open-label study 111. It is correct to say that in a study where everyone knew they were receiving the drug (with the control being their other ear, aka control for show, not a real control), only 34% achieved >=10% absolute WR improvement. It's true that it's statistically significant compared to other ear (no treatment) by the Fisher Exact test, but it's not a riveting clinical benchmark.

I'm so confused. You are saying there's a lot of misinformation in the direction of not understanding the powers of the drug. Yet half the forum is annoyed with some of us because we analyzed this so much lol. I think everyone agrees that the 3 super responders you are referring to from Phase 1/2 are of extreme interest. I don't think any of the main contributors believes that it's from chance. The speculation is on whether it's the drug or testing bias (it's motivating to perform poorly at screening to get in, but motivating to succeed after treatment to show off the drug).

 

[Chad Lawton]

What @Jurger is correctly referring to is the open-label study 111.

Ahhh, that makes sense. But again, they use 10% as the minimum standard. It doesn't mean that 34% ONLY had 10% improvement because they used the same standard on the 201 study by saying 10% when in reality, most of those with moderate SNHL saw 50%.

Seeing that study 111 includes mild to severe SNHL patients, maybe Will McClean's speculation that moderate SNHL sufferers will benefit the most holds true and would explain the 34%. If you're mild, you don't benefit much and if you're severe, you don't have the healthy progenitors in place to be activated so you can't benefit. Just speculation on my part.

 

[Zugzug]

Ahhh, that makes sense. But again, they use 10% as the minimum standard. It doesn't mean that 34% ONLY had 10% improvement because they used the same standard on the 201 study by saying 10% when in reality, most of those with moderate SNHL saw 50%.

I hear you on the only, as that puts a positive spin on it. For example, how many of the >=10% improvers were super responders? Here's the problem though. They don't reveal this, but they also don't reveal how many of the controls (bad ears) were super responders either. All we know from the attached graph is that there were also some bad ears that improved by >=10% (that also tells us that it may be possible to improve by 10% by chance). I would think if the treated ears saw super responders, but the untreated ears did not, they would show this off somehow.

The other issue with regards to the logic that the super responders were all moderate SNHL (true), is that the Phase 1/2 study lacked any placebo participants that were moderate SNHL in WR. Hence, it would be far more interesting to see a comparison between the groups in terms of number of super responders.

There's also the fact that they recruited for Phase 2a with the intention of getting more people like the super responders from Phase 1/2. It was still a flop.

 

[Street Novelist]

The figure at the front of the publication shows two purple arrows, one trans-tympanic and one from the direction of the Eustachian tube.

It's gotta come from somewhere...

I saw the diagram, but it didn't make sense. How would they deliver it through the Eustachian tube?

 

[Diesel]

My friend, you are very late to the party. We have beaten this topic to death to the point of computing p-values for the probability of an individual randomly improving WR by that much.

What @Jurger is correctly referring to is the open-label study 111. It is correct to say that in a study where everyone knew they were receiving the drug (with the control being their other ear, aka control for show, not a real control), only 34% achieved >=10% absolute WR improvement. It's true that it's statistically significant compared to other ear (no treatment) by the Fisher Exact test, but it's not a riveting clinical benchmark.

I'm so confused. You are saying there's a lot of misinformation in the direction of not understanding the powers of the drug. Yet half the forum is annoyed with some of us because we analyzed this so much lol. I think everyone agrees that the 3 super responders you are referring to from Phase 1/2 are of extreme interest. I don't think any of the main contributors believes that it's from chance. The speculation is on whether it's the drug or testing bias (it's motivating to perform poorly at screening to get in, but motivating to succeed after treatment to show off the drug).

I think it would be interesting to see what the severe group specifically did in the open-label. Assuming any got FX-322. This is the first time they had severe SNHL as a recruiting parameter. Might help put a little validity behind the theory that severe patients don't make good fakers.

...and give us all another reason to get flared up about this drug.

 

[Chad Lawton]

There's also the fact that they recruited for Phase 2a with the intention of getting more people like the super responders from Phase 1/2. It was still a flop.

View attachment 44391

I can see how it's a double edge sword. They wanted to recruit more people with word deficits in hopes of getting more super responders but by openly telling participants that, it opened them up for people to lie to get into the trial by faking word recognition scores which botched the results.

 

[FGG]

I hear you on the only, as that puts a positive spin on it. For example, how many of the >=10% improvers were super responders? Here's the problem though. They don't reveal this, but they also don't reveal how many of the controls (bad ears) were super responders either. All we know from the attached graph is that there were also some bad ears that improved by >=10% (that also tells us that it may be possible to improve by 10% by chance). I would think if the treated ears saw super responders, but the untreated ears did not, they would show this off somehow.

The other issue with regards to the logic that the super responders were all moderate SNHL (true), is that the Phase 1/2 study lacked any placebo participants that were moderate SNHL in WR. Hence, it would be far more interesting to see a comparison between the groups in terms of number of super responders.

There's also the fact that they recruited for Phase 2a with the intention of getting more people like the super responders from Phase 1/2. It was still a flop.

View attachment 44391

The only true "misinformation" I see but it's a big one and repeated often is that the audiogram measures hearing broadly (vs just outer hair cells) and that without audiogram changes, the drug can't possibly do anything and therefore it is a guaranteed flop. But:

a) IHCs are both important for hearing (and tinnitus in some cases) and seem to be the structure more important for loudness hyperacusis. No one has to take my word for it, look these things up.

b) If we also know (based on many studies), that IHC loss doesn't effect hearing until you have lost quite a lot of them, then the super responders vs more mild/moderate responders just makes sense. The heterogeneity is not in delivery in these cases, it would be due to the individual cochlear make up of the responders.

Because of this: we don't know what it could actually do for OHCs as the drug was given, if say there is an IHC preference. Multi dosing at longer intervals could produce extremely different results here.

Anyway, Diesel also posted a very interesting rat study that showed if you only selectively destroyed one of the 3 OHC rows (there is a toxin that does this if dosed a certain way per the study) then the audiogram only changes by 5-1 0dB. If that holds true for people, you would have to multi dose to get appreciable audiogram changes but it now appears that rapid multi dosing is problematic.

But, yes, the point has been made that the drug has a penetrance problem for sure. It likely only gets to 6 kHz-8 kHz tops in this formulation and rapid multi dosing can't alleviate this because it's harmful for the effectiveness. BUT, that doesn't mean the drug "doesn't work."

It clearly does something very significant single dose for the right patient (one with a lot of IHC damage it looks like) if you believe the Phase 1 data wasn't fraud of some sort.

It also doesn't mean it does nothing for OHCs. If the rat study is similar in people, it means some people in the single dose group (presumably that had fairly normal IHCs) would get 5-10 dB changes and those would represent actual changes and not audiogram variability. It's not too far fetched to think that something akin to lateral inhibition could keep all 3 rows of OHCs from regrowing all at once (or any number of other possibilities). That's why the individual data is important too. If individuals are getting 5-10 dB changes across a few frequencies without word score changes this could be very significant.

I could see how this seems like juggling too many variables to fit but that's how multi factorial medicine is. It's complicated and sometimes it's hard to put it all together. To give you a vet example, you can't regulate a diabetic dog's insulin if they have a significant untreated UTI because it causes insulin resistance. This took a long time for the profession to figure out as a co-factor because it's not very obvious or intuitive. And the only way you figure out these individual factors is to look at the data. What makes *this* case different?

Until you answer that "why", you can't make broad claims about the effectiveness of the drug (except that you could use pharmacokinetic data to say that it doesn't diffuse past 6 kHz in its current form and rapid multi dosing to correct this is problematic, so reformulation or another technology would be required for deeper penetrance). I think that issue is a fair one to conclude with the evidence so far.

 

[Zugzug]

I think it would be interesting to see what the severe group specifically did in the open-label. Assuming any got FX-322. This is the first time they had severe SNHL as a recruiting parameter. Might help put a little validity behind the theory that severe patients don't make good fakers.

...and give us all another reason to get flared up about this drug.

I can see how it's a double edge sword. They wanted to recruit more people with word deficits in hopes of getting more super responders but by openly telling participants that, it opened them up for people to lie to get into the trial by faking word recognition scores which botched the results.

Maybe I'm on an island, but I wonder if harmless bias could be more at play than we think. I'm not totally sold on the binary that one either lies or they perform similarly. Where I do agree with everyone is that something is at play for these doublings. I'm not sold that "poor trial design" is just a euphemism for lying.

I'm just thinking about myself here. If I was in the trial and I thought I was improving, I would feel some degree of pressure and nervousness over the upcoming test. I could easily see myself innocently googling the word score tests -- maybe just out of curiosity even, or a curiosity over the kind of hearing improvements it could demonstrate. It's a really natural thing to do. The word "mew" is a strange word that I only know of (for hearing tests) because of this, for example.

Either way, something is going on if I am taking the test with different levels of motivation. Of course, it could be the drug too. I suspect outright dishonesty is very low -- maybe a few at most.

 

[Philip83]

Either way, something is going on if I am taking the test with different levels of motivation.

My mom is a testament to this. She is 67 and has severe hearing loss (from age, noise - no other complications - audigrams around 70-90 dB), and her hearing capabilities fluctuates like crazy - partially depending on mood.

She usually has to look at people to have their lips aid her understand them. But the other day she told me she was biking with her friend and while she was biking behind my mom she was talking to her and they both suddenly realized that my mom could hear what she was saying and they were both baffled!

 

[FGG]

Maybe I'm on an island, but I wonder if harmless bias could be more at play than we think. I'm not totally sold on the binary that one either lies or they perform similarly. Where I do agree with everyone is that something is at play for these doublings. I'm not sold that "poor trial design" is just a euphemism for lying.

I'm just thinking about myself here. If I was in the trial and I thought I was improving, I would feel some degree of pressure and nervousness over the upcoming test. I could easily see myself innocently googling the word score tests -- maybe just out of curiosity even, or a curiosity over the kind of hearing improvements it could demonstrate. It's a really natural thing to do. The word "mew" is a strange word that I only know of (for hearing tests) because of this, for example.

Either way, something is going on if I am taking the test with different levels of motivation. Of course, it could be the drug too. I suspect outright dishonesty is very low -- maybe a few at most.

Outright dishonesty would likely be low IF they didn't select for it. That's why bad trial design is partly to blame.

It's very uncommon to have widespread IHC loss (and you need a lot to start decreasing word scores) without being in the severe range on audiogram.

OHCs (and synapses) usually are damaged first before IHCs. Widespread IHC loss without having a severe PTA is a bit of a unicorn. It exists but it's not all that common. So let's say 1 in 100 people with hearing loss would lie but 1 in 300 (hypothetically) have that presentation. You are then selecting for the liars. Because of the trial design.

 

[Diesel]

Maybe I'm on an island, but I wonder if harmless bias could be more at play than we think. I'm not totally sold on the binary that one either lies or they perform similarly. Where I do agree with everyone is that something is at play for these doublings. I'm not sold that "poor trial design" is just a euphemism for lying.

I'm just thinking about myself here. If I was in the trial and I thought I was improving, I would feel some degree of pressure and nervousness over the upcoming test. I could easily see myself innocently googling the word score tests -- maybe just out of curiosity even, or a curiosity over the kind of hearing improvements it could demonstrate. It's a really natural thing to do. The word "mew" is a strange word that I only know of (for hearing tests) because of this, for example.

Either way, something is going on if I am taking the test with different levels of motivation. Of course, it could be the drug too. I suspect outright dishonesty is very low -- maybe a few at most.

Here's the thing... if you can't hear the word to begin with, how do you know you're guessing it right? Example is a 9-year old manual for a speech recognition CD. This is the Maryland CNC, but I think it's close to the CNC used in the Phase 2A:

https://chs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/all_yellow_cd_score_sheets.pdf

There are a ton of similarities to the words in the lists, I think one would really struggle, or need to devote an insane amount of time to practice to memorize the words, while they cannot actually hear them in the word exam. Maybe 1 person might be able to scam at that level, but not a whole host of participants.

 

[Zugzug]

Here's the thing... if you can't hear the word to begin with, how do you know you're guessing it right? Example is a 9-year old manual for a speech recognition CD. This is the Maryland CNC, but I think it's close to the CNC used in the Phase 2A:

https://chs.asu.edu/sites/default/files/all_yellow_cd_score_sheets.pdf

There are a ton of similarities to the words in the lists, I think one would really struggle, or need to devote an insane amount of time to practice to memorize the words, while they cannot actually hear them in the word exam. Maybe 1 person might be able to scam at that level, but not a whole host of participants.

Here's something to consider. There's a trade off between testing reliability and pattern recognition. For example, in the Wilson and McArdle paper on speech in noise stability, they assigned people to a list and then gave them the same list later (even the same randomization order). Obviously, this is the most reliable way to determine change in hearing. However, human beings have brains so their brains can recognize previous patterns. I recall @Aaron91 (enjoy your vacation from Tinnitus Talk, buddy) sharing that one of the participants felt more confident and that there was some intersection in words tested.

I do agree with you that if it was a computerized, random selection of words from a bank of 1000, it's completely negligible to greatly factor in learning, especially considering the binary nature (right or wrong) of the test.

 

[Zugzug]

Outright dishonesty would likely be low IF they didn't select for it. That's why bad trial design is partly to blame.

It's very uncommon to have widespread IHC loss (and you need a lot to start decreasing word scores) without being in the severe range on audiogram.

OHCs (and synapses) usually are damaged first before IHCs. Widespread IHC loss without having a severe PTA is a bit of a unicorn. It exists but it's not all that common. So let's say 1 in 100 people with hearing loss would lie but 1 in 300 (hypothetically) have that presentation. You are then selecting for the liars. Because of the trial design.

The spirit of some of what you're saying is almost irrefutable. It's a cold hard fact that the person with moderate OHC detection loss, but horrific ability to make out words is rare.

Here's where I will push back on with the probabilities you gave (obviously, they are made up numbers). Let's say 1 in 300 people with mild-moderately severe hearing loss have that presentation. That would describe the probability of Frequency Therapeutics taking a large pool of people with hearing loss (importantly, not applicants) and picking someone of that type at random.

However, there's another side to the dishonesty coin. If they know that Frequency Therapeutics only wants people with word score problems, they may not even apply at all. There's a balancing out effect. It's not like everyone who realizes they aren't eligible just lies to fit the criteria. The qualified applicant pool consists of people that, however rare their conditions are, made it there because of their conditions.

 

[jeff W]

INVESTIGATION ALERT: The Schall Law Firm Announces it is Investigating Claims Against Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. and Encourages Investors with Losses of $100,000 to Contact the Firm

The company is under investigation for violation of securities law. I felt crushed after hearing the recent trial results but still had some hope. Then this news. I personally won't buy any shares for the near future. Doesn't give me any confidence...

This happened with GENVEC, it's just another lawyer class action fishing trip.

 

[FGG]

The spirit of some of what you're saying is almost irrefutable. It's a cold hard fact that the person with moderate OHC detection loss, but horrific ability to make out words is rare.

Here's where I will push back on with the probabilities you gave (obviously, they are made up numbers). Let's say 1 in 300 people with mild-moderately severe hearing loss have that presentation. That would describe the probability of Frequency Therapeutics taking a large pool of people with hearing loss (importantly, not applicants) and picking someone of that type at random.

However, there's another side to the dishonesty coin. If they know that Frequency Therapeutics only wants people with word score problems, they may not even apply at all. There's a balancing out effect. It's not like everyone who realizes they aren't eligible just lies to fit the criteria. The qualified applicant pool consists of people that, however rare their conditions are, made it there because of their conditions.

As you noticed, those were made up numbers but if you take out the people who didn't apply (those people don't factor in here), you have two types of people: a) people without a severe PTA but who have depressed word scores (i.e. people whose IHCs are much more destroyed than their OHCs) and b) people who have mostly the kind of loss that shows up in an audiogram vs word scores but wants to get in anyway.

Normally, there probably aren't that many people who would would lie (b) but if (a) is relatively rare you could artificially over-inflate (b).

 

[Greg Sacramento]

it's just another lawyer class action fishing trip.

I don't think so. Too many large sells two days to weeks before big drop. Option use and sells was concerning at the same time with upgrades. Too much professional manipulation.

 

[RB2014]

I don't think so. Too many large sells two days to weeks before big drop. Option use and sells was concerning at the same time with upgrades. Too much professional manipulation.

You are right. I just looked and up till three weeks prior there was a lot of selling taking place that dropped the stock price. March 23 is the day it dropped a lot, but February 19 is when it started dropping. Some of that was probably people profit taking. It went from $55 to $36 though before it finally fell to $8.

I bet a lot of people were content with taking profit before the results came out, but that is really curious.

 

[GlennS]

Anyway, my point was that I really didn't understand why people on this thread were trying to shut down any analysis of the company's claims

Is that a rhetorical question or do you actually want an answer? What I've been trying to say is that the answer is cynicism. You don't seem to want to accept that and keep asserting that we should take a company's word for it. How does the track record of tinnitus treatment claims over the years jive with your position vs. the cynics? I think the rational conclusion is that the burden of proof is on FREQ.

 

[FGG]

Is that a rhetorical question or do you actually want an answer? What I've been trying to say is that the answer is cynicism. You don't seem to want to accept that and keep asserting that we should take a company's word for it. How does the track record of tinnitus treatment claims over the years jive with your position vs. the cynics? I think the rational conclusion is that the burden of proof is on FREQ.

That's again, not what I said. I said we should consider what they say is plausible and investigate if that seems the case. Which is what I have been doing.

I have always said I await the severe trial arm and you are again not understanding my communication and putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting what I am saying.

 

[GlennS]

I said we should consider what they say is plausible

You're splitting hairs. That means take their word for it... colloquially.

Look, this is a public company. There is a lot at stake and a lot of blood sweat and tears. They're not going to just throw up their hands and say "that's all folks, we're done". Obviously they are going to search for a reason to continue, even if it's just grasping at straws. You can't expect them to be 100% unbiased in their stance. If a bunch of 3rd parties come out of the woodworks saying give FREQ a chance, that's a different story, assuming they too don't also have a conflict of interest.

Look, I'm with you insofar as some of the flippant one-liners here aren't helpful but you should at least acknowledge why people feel they have reason to be skeptical. We can all accept and explain our different positions without being disrespectful.

 

[Zugzug]

Is that a rhetorical question or do you actually want an answer? What I've been trying to say is that the answer is cynicism. You don't seem to want to accept that and keep asserting that we should take a company's word for it. How does the track record of tinnitus treatment claims over the years jive with your position vs. the cynics? I think the rational conclusion is that the burden of proof is on FREQ.

Just as an outsider looking at this back and forth, it seems like you are straw manning her positions to some degree. She said analysis of the company's claims, as in good or bad.

I understand your position as well, which is that this operation has never been successful before, so we should always pad the situations with doubt. This is fair.

I think the non-sexy way to feel about all of this stuff is to not overreact either way. Are all of Will McLean and Robert Langer's achievements and opinions nullified because they experienced a failure in trying to be the first company to successfully regenerate the ear? Of course not.

Another thing that's important here is to be nuanced about who to criticize. Somewhere in this operation, there are business failures and other places there are scientific failures. Most scientific failures are a result of degree of difficulty, as opposed to arrogance or deception.

To construct a straw man of my own, let's say, hypothetically, every single human being just hated on Frequency Therapeutics, and believed that they are a bunch of fraudulent losers. Who would invest? How would their current scientific achievements grow?

There's a long-haul situation where this company makes it to Phase 3 and fails again. How do they make it past the finish line if every single person just hates them? Even if Frequency Therapeutics isn't the one, we have to be realistic that the first company to succeed at this will face setbacks.

My point is not to shill for the company (obviously, I've been highly critical), but that wanting to discuss truths and non-truths is not out of line.

 

[FGG]

You're splitting hairs. That means take their word for it... colloquially.

Look, this is a public company. There is a lot at stake and a lot of blood sweat and tears. They're not going to just throw up their hands and say "that's all folks, we're done". Obviously they are going to search for a reason to continue, even if it's just grasping at straws. You can't expect them to be 100% unbiased in their stance. If a bunch of 3rd parties come out of the woodworks saying give FREQ a chance, that's a different story, assuming they too don't also have a conflict of interest.

Look, I'm with you insofar as some of the flippant one-liners here aren't helpful but you should at least acknowledge why people feel they have reason to be skeptical. We can all accept and explain our different positions without being disrespectful.

No. It doesn't mean take their word. It means investigate their word. It's not semantics. Those are different things. And that's the reason I think there is a legit communication problem (like we are walkie talkies each set to a different frequency) because you are interpreting what I am trying to communicate consistently the wrong way.

And I clearly get why someone would be skeptical of a company that failed a clinical trial phase but if their reasoning is "audiograms measure hearing, therefore the drug doesn't do anything" I feel like I should at least let people know that there might be things about hearing physiology and audiograms they may not know and the situation is more nuanced than it seems.

I fully agree with respect but shouldn't that go both ways? I outlined why what Frequency Therapeutics is saying is possible and why there is actual evidence the drug does something significant (and at least one YouTube famous audiologist agrees) and you literally said I was Charlie Brown and the Great Pumpkin without even taking the time to try to understand my points.

 

[Keith Handy]

...and you literally said I was Charlie Brown and the Great Pumpkin without even taking the time to try to understand my points.

*Linus.

 

[Diesel]

Me right now, reading this thread, waiting for the next trial results to come out...

 

[Brian P]

They tried and failed. They will try again and other companies will try. Sadly I think treating only the ear is a big mistake. Maybe our great grandkids will be around to see a treatment that works for this. Surely not in my lifetime and I'm 38.