Galectin Therapeutics Inc (GALT) Quote

The only fact that matters, no matter how much shade you try to throw on it:

“ The NAVIGATE trial did not meet its primary endpoint”

https://www.hcplive.com/view/belapectin-misses-primary-endpoint-phase-3-mash-cirrhosis-portal-hypertension-trial

That is your layperson opinion. Like I said, look up the biographies of these highly respected liver authorities. They are looking at the all data taken together, along with their understanding of the disease, to come to this conclusion. They work directly with MASH under the microscope, and in the operating room transplanting livers and fixing bleeding varices. They work directly in designing and assessing the outcomes of clinical trials. You have none of that experience, sunspotter. What we do know is that you are on the keyboard all day posting on a stock board. That doesn't make you qualified.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

"Are you talking about MDGL's drug?"

No.

Are you a supporter of the competitor MDGL?

No. I suspect their candidate will be shown to be as ineffective as belapectin..

"you have to falsely claim that the worlds respected liver disease authorities are liars"

I simply state the truth that there is no clinical trial evidence that belapectin is effective at any dose for reducing varices, and that there is evidence to suggest it isn't.

I'm sorry that the science and medical statistics of clinical research continue to elude you, but if you could address the facts rather than indulging in pointless ad hominem attacks you might help yourself.

It's time for us to investigate your ulterior motive, sunspotter. You just stated "I have been closely associated with one very successful drug used in liver disease." Are you talking about MDGL's drug? Are you a supporter of the competitor MDGL? That would explain why you are determined to take down the competition even if it means you have to falsely claim that the worlds respected liver disease authorities are liars.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

“ The title is not disputable by a layperson such as yourself sunspotter.”

I’m afraid that not only is it disputable, it’s flat out wrong, and I’ve explained exactly why.

You on the other hand keep repeating your false claim by relying on authority rather than facts.

And yes, as it happens, I have worked in the hepatology field, I know many hepatologists, I have been closely associated with one very successful drug used in liver disease - but that doesn’t matter.

Facts are what matter and the fact is that the NAVIGATE study results do not support the claim that any dose of belapectin reduces the incidence of varices.

No amount of your whining will alter this truth.

The title is not disputable by a layperson such as yourself sunspotter. Have you ever worked in the hepatology field? No you haven't. LOL you are laughable to think your amateur stock board persona can go up against 10 authorities in the field.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

“ If you are saying they made a false claim”

I am saying that the claim that the 2mg/kg dose of election reduces the incidence of varices is not supported by the results of the NAVIGATE trial, because it’s not.

It’s not difficult or even controversial.

If the unlikely event that any of the authors wish to sue me for defamation, they’re welcome.

They would lose.

The title is clear. There is enough evidence for 10 highly respected liver disease experts to make the claim that belapectin reduces varices development. They put their names behind the title. If you are saying they made a false claim, you are getting yourself into potential jeopardy going up against people who will be very interested in defending their reputation.

There is plenty of scientific evidence spanning multiple trials. There is new FibroScan data further validating the results. You are obviously not aware of developments with this company and you just have an ulterior bashing agenda to say any nonsensical things.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

For the last time, it doesn’t matter how many authors or physicians (or PRWP/GALT company pimps) claim that:

“Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis”

because there is no statistical or scientific basis to make that false claim.

That’s just a stone cold fact.

Start arguing the science rather than attributing beliefs to investigators who I hope know better than to distort real data by painting targets around existing bullet holes.

Wow sunspotter you are trying so hard to counter 10 authors who are well respected authorities in the liver disease field. In the normal publication process, authors agree on the title. The title is very clear and no one can be mistaken on the meaning of the title, including the 10 authors. Now you are accusing them of having a ghost writer, as if they are blind and unaware of the title. With each post you get more ridiculous LOL.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

“ So can you state it clearly sunspotter, that you are accusing the following authors of lying?”

Having worked in the pharma industry for more years than I care to remember, I understand that the “authors” of the abstract you refer to did not write that title.

But the ghost writer was either confused or conflicted, and wrote that the 2mg/kg dose of belapectin reduced the incidence of varices, when the most that can be claimed is that there were fewer varices in the 2mg/kg group which cannot be causally attributed to the drug because of the failure of the drug to reach the primary endpoint. The confounding finding that 4mg/kg had no effect reinforces that this was likely a random coincidence rather than due to any drug effect.

TBH I’m getting tired of tutoring you on this matter.

May I suggest you contact some of the names attached to this abstract and ask them frankly if they think belapectin works?

Mr. Market has already drawn his own correct conclusion, and sooner or later you will have to do so too:

So can you state it clearly sunspotter, that you are accusing the following authors of lying? Have you looked up their bios? How do you think they will react and what actions they will take against you when they find out you are making this reputation accusation against them?

Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani

Protest and confabulate as much as you like, but this title is simply unscientific and misleading:

“Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension”

The NAVIGATE study failed its primary endpoint. In that circumstance secondary endpoints are not valid and should not be used to make statements such as that made by VPLM’s ghost writer of the abstract you quote.

Anybody remotely familiar with medical statistics and trial analysis knows this. Anybody who denies it is either ignorant or lying.

Which are you?

sunspotter, so now you are accusing 10 authors, who are highly respected in the field of liver disease, of data manipulation? LOL Look up their biographies, the author list is below. You are quite something, trying to spin a narrative that suits your agenda. In the face of all the factual information, you stubbornly stick to making false accusations because you are able to hide behind a message board handle. Sad.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

"It is laughable that a person with no medical training such as yourself has the gall to deny the collective conclusions for these 10 highly respected medical scientists."

I have medical training, and statistical expertise which is why I recognise data manipulation when I see it.

While there is a signal that the 2mg/kg dose may reduce the number of varices, may being the operative word, to claim it does indeed do so on the basis of the NAVIGATE study is false and misleading.

The study failed its primary endpoint, so the secondaries are moot and invalid. Furthermore the failure of the 4mg/kg dose suggests even that signal is an artefact.

As I say the title of the abstract is definitely misleading. I hope the actual content is more accurate, and in any case the "authors" should have a stiff word with the medical writer employed by GALT to write this abstract.

Again, I'm sorry for your losses. Maybe you should have a word with Big Jim about the company of which he owns more than anybody? I'm sure he has some influence with the BoD (LOL), and I'm sure like you he doesn't want to crystallise his enormous losses on PRWP/GALT.

LOL this conversation is revealing more about you, sunspotter, than it is about the company. Specifically you have an ulterior motive grudge that you are holding onto for several years that you won't let go of, despite the positive evidence in favor of the company.

So what if the original angel investor still holds a lot of shares. Apparently he hasn't sold, which is good. The fact is that he has zero involvement in the company for the past several years. He's not even on the board anymore. If this is your big swipe against the company, you are really grasping for straws.

In the rest of your post you are disputing the conclusions of the 10 authors who are highly respected, not just in the US but they are internationally recognized authorities in treatment for liver disease. It is laughable that a person with no medical training such as yourself has the gall to deny the collective conclusions for these 10 highly respected medical scientists.

LOL we are learning about you sunspotter.

"Mr. Czirr provided funding more than a decade ago through his equity fund and has not been involved in the company in any way for many years since that time."

Wrong:

James C. Czirr owns 12,758,868 common stock which is 18.4%, and 100,00 preferred stock, which is 7.9% of that class.

Additionally his personal fund, 10X Fund LLP owns 11,654,650 common stock, 16.9% of the common stock.

I don't know about you, but my belief is that owning 35.3% of a company does actually indicate a degree of involvement. To claim otherwise seems naïve in the extreme.

https://investor.galectintherapeutics.com/node/18521/html#Item12.

"These authors reputations for medical and scientific truth will far exceed that of an anonymous internet board poster on a stock board."

I'm sure that's true, and maybe a ghost writer committed this egregious error in the abstract you quoted:

"Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial"

The scientific fact is that the NAVIGATE failed its primary endpoint, and therefore the secondary endpoints prospective or otherwise are rendered moot, that is to say invalid, except as a potential starting point for new research:

"Secondary endpoints cannot be validly analyzed if the primary endpoint does not demonstrate clear statistical significance"

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0197245697000755?via%3Dihub

"Belapectin Misses Primary Endpoint in Phase 3 MASH Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension Trial"

In the case of the NAVIGATE study that's doubly so as the 4mg/kg dose was indistinguishable from placebo.

https://www.hcplive.com/view/belapectin-misses-primary-endpoint-phase-3-mash-cirrhosis-portal-hypertension-trial

Again, I'm sorry for your losses but that's no excuse for distorting the facts.

(The abstract "authors" should also be more careful with their reputations, especially as replication is all the rage nowadays.)

subspotter first of all this shows how little you know about the company, because you don't even know who's involved. Mr. Czirr provided funding more than a decade ago through his equity fund and has not been involved in the company in any way for many years since that time. You cannot take away from the medical advance because you have some beef with someone from a decade ago. This is completely irrelevant, because this equity fundraiser is not involved with the company in any way whatsoever in recent years.

Take a look at these medical authors credentials and then tell us if you are accusing these authors of untruths. Look up each of their biographies. These authors reputations for medical and scientific truth will far exceed that of an anonymous internet board poster on a stock board.

Title: Belapectin at 2 mg/kg/LBW Reduces Varices Development in MASH Cirrhosis with Portal Hypertension: Results from the NAVIGATE Trial
Abstract Number: LB-006/ LB25183
Session: Poster, Complication of Cirrhosis, Portal Hypertension
Authors: Naim Alkhouri, Raj Vuppalanchi, Mazen Noureddin, Mitchell Shiffman, Eric J. Lawitz, Edward Mena, Nadege Gunn, Khurram Jamil, Stephen A. Harrison, Naga Chalasani
Date, time & location: Saturday, May 10, 2024: 1:00 PM - 2:30 PM, CET RAI Amsterdam

Sorry for the losses of those who have fallen for Jim Czirr and his associates' many distortions and untruths over the decades that PRWP/GALT has been hoodwinking its marks.

But while losing money is no doubt painful, that's no reason to resort to incivility and groundless accusations.

"Impressive data"

Not that impressive when you consider the 4mg/kg group showed no benefit and that PRWP/GALT has a history of distorting and misrepresenting the science and clinical efficacy of belapectin.

Impressive data considering how tough it is to treat advanced cirrhosis.

"We are particularly encouraged by the liver stiffness measure (LSM), which showed that approximately double the number of patients demonstrated worsening of liver stiffness on placebo compared to on belapectin. We also showed that the difference in new varices between the 2 mg/kg dose and placebo was primarily driven by a reduction in medium and large varices, rather than small ones. This is relevant for clinicians since it’s medium or large size varices that are more likely to bleed and or require additional treatment. We also demonstrated that the proportion of patients who experienced a significant worsening of LSM were significantly higher in the placebo group compared to the 2 mg/kg belapectin group, thus reinforcing the relationship between disease progression and development of varices.

These findings further support the potential clinical efficacy of belapectin. With Fast Track Designation in place, we are hopeful that the belapectin program will ultimately deliver the first targeted treatment for patients with MASH cirrhosis and portal hypertension.”

Con panel tossed! Breaking: RFK Jr. Removes All Members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced late today that he is retiring all 17 members of the CDC vaccine advisory committee. “A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science,” Kennedy wrote in an op-ed published today in The Wall Street Journal.
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.
June 9, 2025

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2025-04-03/can-moderna-or-rest-vaccine-makers-survive-rfks-vaccine-crackdown-during-global

Mr. Market knows what's going on here.

Mr. Market knows what "not statistically significant" means, understands that you can't omit to mention a whole dosing arm, and also gets that painting new targets around existing bullet holes that missed the original target is the work of conmen and grifters.

Whether you call it PRWP or GALT, this leopard has never changed its spots.

JIm Czirr is a conman who has hired other conmen to do his dirty work for him.

Anyone can write anything on an internet board. I only trust official sources of information.

Khurram Jamil, M.D., Chief Medical Officer added “I am encouraged by the 2 mg belapectin data, which demonstrated an approximately 49% reduction in varices incidence in the per-protocol population and a 68% reduction in the per-protocol population of U.S. patients, further validating the findings of our previous Phase 2b (GT-026) trial. Additionally, a total of 57 subjects completed 36 months of treatment and the positive trend that was observed at 18 months for the belapectin 2 mg cohort was sustained at 36 months, with a lower incidence of varices compared to placebo (13.0% vs. 20.0%). These results further support the potential of the 2 mg dose in preventing varices in MASH cirrhosis patients with portal hypertension. I believe the results warrant further clinical development as belapectin could become a pivotal therapeutic option for these patients who currently do not have any treatment options. Our hope is that belapectin MASH program, which has a Fast Track Designation, will ultimately provide the first targeted treatment option for the increasing number of patients affected by MASH-associated liver cirrhosis.”

NASH Cirrhosis

Highlights

In the per-protocol population (n=287), the incidence of varices was reduced by 49.3% in patients treated with belapectin 2 mg vs placebo (nominal p-value = 0.04).

The incidence of varices was significantly reduced by 68.1% (p=0.02) in the per-protocol patients enrolled in the U.S. treated with belapectin 2 mg vs placebo (n=186).

Patients in the U.S. had a higher percentage use of GLP-1 and statins than the rest of the world across three cohorts, and the belapectin cohorts performed much better than placebo in the U.S.

Similar proportion of subjects reported Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Treatment-Emergent Serious Adverse Events (TEASEs), and discontinuation across the 3 cohorts. No drug related Serious Adverse Events (SAE) were observed in NAVIGATE.

The Company is currently conducting the full analysis of the NAVIGATE trial data and anticipates having additional biomarker data in the second quarter of 2025.

GALT under $2

Sorry, your DD just doesn't cut it. Any statistician would prove your exaggerations are a distortion of reality.

More data dredging, the equivalent of painting targets around already existing bullet holes.

Any statistician with any expertise in life sciences and DB controlled studies will recognise this as a disgraceful and invalid attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Clearly nothing has changed since the days of fraud during PRWP era:

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/biotech-stock-mailbag-aspenbio-10741455

NORCROSS, Ga., February 18, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: GALT), the leading developer of therapeutics that target galectin proteins, today announced additional results showing a statistically significant reduction in new varices in per-protocol patients (completers) enrolled in the U.S. from the NAVIGATE trial for belapectin in patients with Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated SteatoHepatitis (MASH) cirrhosis and portal hypertension.

The NAVIGATE trial top-line results showed that while the incidence of varices at 18 months was 43.2% lower in patients treated with belapectin 2 mg vs placebo, the composite endpoint did not reach statistical significance in the intent-to-treat population (N=355). However, in the completer population of 287 patients (revised), the incidence of varices was reduced by 49.3% in patients treated with belapectin 2 mg vs placebo (nominal p-value = 0.04 (revised)).


Following the favorable trend observed in the completers, the Company further analyzed the two thirds of the completer patients in the NAVIGATE trial enrolled in the U.S. (n=186). The incidence of varices in this population was significantly reduced by 68.1% (p=0.02) in patients treated with belapectin 2 mg (4 out of 60) vs placebo (13 out of 62) in the U.S. While all three cohorts of patients in the U.S. had a higher percentage use of GLP-1 and statins than the rest of the world, the belapectin cohorts performed much better than placebo in the U.S.

Joel Lewis, Chief Executive Officer at Galectin Therapeutics commented: “With the prevalence of MASH cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension in the U.S. now estimated in Hepatology at around 3 million adults, the need for new treatments that can prevent disease progression is more urgent than we had anticipated. The significant reduction of 68% we see in incidence of new varices in completer patients in the U.S. from the NAVIGATE trial underscores belapectin’s potential as a treatment for MASH cirrhosis and portal hypertension. We are continuing to analyze the data from the trial, including from the approximately 50 patients who completed 36-months of therapy. We look forward to sharing additional clinical updates as data becomes available in the first quarter of 2025.”

The Company will determine next steps for belapectin development with potential partners in conjunction with the completion of the ongoing analyses.


1Younossi ZM, de Avila L, Racila A, et al. Prevalence and predictors of cirrhosis and portal hypertension in the United States. Hepatology. 2025 Jan 29. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000001243.

Man I'm sorry.  Wish you good health 

No doubt for futility. As it has no discernible clinical effect in actual controlled trials, it’s unlikely to be for toxicity.

I am a patient of the Navigate trial, and it has been stopped.

Maybe he worked for Dr. Falsie in the past.

bullshit. it does not mean total efficacy. Give credit where it is due is what science is all about. This is what studies are for... to find what works for who and how much. You miss the whole point of trials and studies. You would not make a very good investigator throwing out good bad and ulgy data out the window. This is how you fine tune your future research. Oh let's ignore that area where there were good benefits! Hello. Get a grip dude.

sunspotter is clueless. This person follows too many stocks and doesn't know what they are talking about. Look at the latest MASH-TAG conference where good news is coming out from the independent key opinion leaders. Look at their activity on social media, it's all positive for GALT from the true experts. This drug has repeatable results in preventing varices.

That’s bullshit. Read the links I posted in my earlier post.

Claiming efficacy for a drug that failed its primary endpoint is a conman’s trick.

Wrong. Data is data and giving credit where credit is due is real science. All pharma's cite such achievements along with those that don't regardless of achieving the primary end point.

Dr. Jamil should know that once it is established that the primary endpoint has not been reached, it is widely recognised that it is not valid statistically to declare secondary endpoints and other sub-analyses as having reached statistical significance.

It’s a (not very) sophisticated form of data dredging:

“ Secondary endpoints are typically analyzed after the primary endpoint results are known: They support and complement the primary findings but cannot override the results of the primary endpoint analysis.
If a trial fails to meet its primary endpoint, positive secondary endpoint results are insufficient to consider it successful.”

https://atlantiaclinicaltrials.com/blog/research-development/what-are-endpoints-in-clinical-trials#:~:text=If%20a%20trial%20fails%20to%20meet%20its%20primary,endpoint%20results%20are%20insufficient%20to%20consider%20it%20successful.

See also: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0197245697000755

https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Multiple-Endpoints-in-Clinical-Trials-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf

In the pre-specified per-protocol population, belapectin showed a statistically significant reduction (p-value < 0.05) in development of esophageal varices in 2mg/kg cohort compared to placebo
While there was a favorable trend for incidence of varices in the primary end point intent-to-treat population, belapectin did not achieve statistical significance


Dr. Khurram Jamil, Chief Medical Officer at Galectin Therapeutics, stated, “While we had hoped that the NAVIGATE trial would meet its composite primary endpoint, we are highly encouraged by trends we have seen at only 18 months of treatment in the ITT population and by the statistically significant 48.9% reduction in new varices noted in the per-protocol population with belapectin 2 mg. All enrolled subjects transitioned into a 36-month treatment period, with approximately 50 subjects completing the full 36 months to date. We are still analyzing the extensive data from the trial and anticipate providing multiple clinical updates from the subjects completing 36-month therapy, as well as additional biomarker data in Q1 2025.”
Belapectin was overall well tolerated with no safety signals; incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events were comparable across the three cohorts
Additional data to be presented in early 2025

Results were damn good. Much better than doing nothing. So I do believe this will warrant at a minimum the "Right To Try" as studies continue from the trending up to significance at 36 months.

Correct, I have read this happening many times over the past 30 years, but then again maybe it's all just a conspiracy theory! LMAO
Nothing wrong being a short based on fundamentals. Lying though doesn't cut it and there are plenty of them in the past few years. All grads from the Sykes School for Idiots. Earning the tuition fee brings out the panic and stress for such "students".

can you explain in detail how they are ineffective. Thanks

Your quote does not refute or cancel out the conclusion from Dr. Chalasani, who is looking at all the data in great detail (more than what we have access to). His conclusion of reproducible benefit is a strong statement for significant value of belapectin in cirrhosis.

Not sure why you bring up Jim. His only involvement in recent years is being a large shareholder and he's not involved with managing the company in any way; he is not even on the board anymore.

Actually this quote sums up the whole situation perfectly:

“ While there was a favorable trend for incidence of varices in the primary end point intent-to-treat population, belapectin did not achieve statistical significance”

And not only do I understand pharmaceutical research extremely well, I don’t feel the need to make excuses for serial cheats and liars like Jim Czirr.

This quote sums it up succinctly. Dr. Chalasani has an impeccable reputation, a respected authority in the field, and he would not make up something that he doesn't believe and have evidence for.

"Belapectin clearly is offering a reproducible benefit and should be continued in clinical development as there is a significant unmet need for patients with MASH cirrhosis.” - Dr. Naga Chalasani

Dr. Chalasani is considered an authority in the fields of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Drug Induced Liver Injury (DILI), two highly significant public health problems. His research has been continuously funded by the National Institutes of Health since 1999. He is currently the PI for three U01 awards and an R01 award from the National Institutes of Health. He published over 300 original papers, 3 Practice Guidelines, 47 book chapters/review articles, 31 editorials/commentaries, 16 symposium proceedings, and more than 500 abstracts. He has co-edited a textbook with Prof. Gyongyi Szabo titled ‘Alcoholic & Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease – Bench to bedside’ (Springer 2015). He is the lead author for the AASLD Practice Guideline on the Diagnosis and Management of Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

Some people posting here do not understand pharmacology.

A less effective higher dose happens sometimes especially in immunology (keep in mind that galectins are native immune system proteins that modulate macrophage polarization to affect fibrotic pathways). Examples of other common drugs exhibiting this behavior include immunomodulators, beta-blockers, and hormonal therapies, among others.

Why Higher Doses Can Appear Less Effective
In some studies, high doses of a drug can paradoxically look less effective. This can happen due to several factors:

- Reduced Receptor Turnover: If the target proteins (Galectin-3) are already occupied, additional drug might not only fail to add benefit but could also alter how the body handles or clears the complex, changing the dynamic equilibrium.

- Changes in Drug Clearance or Metabolism: Higher levels of belapectin might trigger regulatory mechanisms in the liver or kidneys that clear the drug more rapidly, resulting in reduced steady-state concentrations at the target site over time.

- Potential Off-Target Effects: Excess drug can bind weakly to non-target proteins or set off other responses, sometimes counteracting the positive effects seen at lower doses.

Hope you listened to your more cautious advice to yourself.

I rather think you missed the point. It’s not that higher doses of GALT’s drug are toxic, it’s that they are ineffective.

Given the purported mechanism, that almost certainly means lower doses are too, and that the implication that the lower dose worked is merely an artefact.

I rather like it here and have posted on this MB for over a decade. I’ll hang around whether you like it or not.

Insider director buy a day ago, above the price I paid days ago.

I like it, I love it, I want some more of it.

Shorts have no shares left to borrow and the cost to borrow is 98%
Holy shit Sherlock, never seen that before. Ever heard of a bear trap?
The guy funding GALT is no Dummy, and experienced and super rich $$$$$$.

⌛️⌛️⌛️ ⌛️ ⌛️

https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/NASDAQ/galectin-therapeutics-GALT/stock-news/95177233/form-4-statement-of-changes-in-beneficial-owners