Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
FF: Its starting to smell like you may have been correct regarding a "covering" PR.
Re: Dr. Chabner's reasons for aligning with PPHM - I would think that it would be obvious. The PR release info stated that Dr. Chabner was instrumental in the approval process of Paclitaxel; PR quote: "He has received numerous honors and awards, including the U.S. Public Health Service's Distinguished Service Award for his leadership in the development and approval of paclitaxel (Taxol(R)), a mainstay of current cancer therapy."
PPHM is running two trials of Bavi + Paclitaxel (breast and lung cancer). If Dr. Chabner was a involved in the development and approval of Paclitaxel and Paclitaxel is a mainstay in cancer therapy then it would be no stretch to say that Dr. Chabner's practice uses Paclitaxel as a major therapy regimen. The fact that Bavi+Paclitaxel is showing great promise is all the reason in the world for Dr. Chabner to go in with PPHM to augment and enhance the effectiveness of his practice's treatments.
This certainly seems to SUGGEST to me that Dr. Chabner has a pretty firm belief that Bavi will fit into the mainstay of cancer treatment by proof of its synergies with existing mainstay therapies as evidenced by the India cancer trial results to date. And I'm sure he's seen more of the details than we have.
The acquisition of a doctor with Dr. Chabner's history and significant standing in the US oncology profession along with his influence in cancer policies - as implied in the release article info - seems to me to be a solid indicator of Bavituximab making a big step into the US cancer mainstream.
Entdoc: I don't want to see a reverse split but I don't think the sky will fall (for me at least) if it happens. I may be discounting the reverse split effect too much. Only time will tell; if and when it happens.
If I didn't believe in the PPHM pipeline I wouldn't be invested in it. I'm one of those people that bought in for the viral news (a couple of years ago on Hep C efficacy news) and found out - as someone said earlier today - that this was a great cancer treatment find too.
I have developed a nice love-hate relationship with this stock.
I am holding on.
Clearwater: I'm sure you realize the whole thread is conjecture; I certainly made an effort to that effect.
If I'm heading for disappointment; so be it. I still believe in this stock based on the trial results presented to date (cancer and viral). I don't see any reason to despair yet. In fact I'm satisfied with the results so far. Could be better but that would just be my restless greed talking. It is after all - as said many times here, a Biotech R&D Co., by its very nature extremely risky.
By your response it appears that you don't believe that PPHM will attempt to release news updates to help boost the PPs prior to the upcoming deadline.
If this is true why do you believe that they won't make an attempt?
If you respond by saying that they don't have the "ammo" (i.e., they don't have any good news to present re: cancer or viral trial updates, or DTRA updates of a positive nature)then it would appear to me that you don't believe the PPHM pipeline technology has any substatial value and therefore would be impossible for PPHM to provide positive news regarding the pipeline products. Is that true?
I'm sorry for trying to predict your response but I'm trying to save time if possible.
I've been watching this board for over 2 years and I don't remember if you ever declared what your interest in this stock is. If you don't mind would you let me know if it is long or short or of you don't have any position at all? I'm in a long position FYI just to make it clear. I'd like to know your interest in the stock if we are going to discuss it.
Thanks.
PPHMLOVER: I didn't realize you were referring to the AOPs. I keep checking those every day (I know they only usually release AOPs on Wed and Sun). I've gotten to the belief (for whatever reason) that we won't see anything until the print edition. All articles don't have to be prior published in AOPs to make the print edition.
PPHMLOVER: The Nature Medicine issues come out - according to the chief Editor - always around the 7th of the month. I posted my email response from him on this issue about this same time last month. Nature Medicine is at the end of the release cycle for all Nature Journals - according to the editor.
FF-you could be right. However, I don't think they want to put out any big news regarding cancer updates or other medical trial updates, until after they have laid a good financial picture "base" in the CC and after getting the long anticipated Haynes paper out of the way - if in fact it does actually come out in September's print issue of Nature Medicine as I am guessing.
No matter what way the Haynes paper's effect is, its going to have some effect (even if the effect is a flop due to the paper being a non-event) because PPHM placed so much effort into touting it - at least up until the last CC at which time it seemed to be absent from discussion.
Also, the CC is going to occur on 9-3 and the Haynes paper is projected (I'm only guessing here) to be coming out on 9-6. These both occur before a holiday shortened trading week.
I would expect the news you refer to will come out after the CC and after the holiday week. I believe that this allows people to get back from the summer vacations and get kids settled in school and then get prepared for some serious stock evaluation/trading/news assessment.
It also allows for some settling of a possible "non-event" Haynes paper impact.
Also, I believe that this prevents PPHM people from having to answer a bunch of detailed probing questions regarding the Haynes paper and any news releases. It also allows PPHM to control the news cycle regarding the projected news releases via PR releases.
Its seems obvious to me that they need to get started on raising the PPs before the NASDAQ deadline. I can't (don't want to) believe they would wait until the very last days in October to do it.
FireFox, I think we will have a "tell" next week regarding whether the Haynes article is coming out in September and if the article's effect is positive or negative. The "tell" will be trade volume without news. I posted awhile back - two months or so, one of my first couple of posts - that all Nature articles considered newsworthy by Nature are released to the press about 1 week prior to the publication date. So I believe/guess that the "tell" will be the press' opinion re: the Haynes article and their opinion will be reflected in a relevant change in trade volume without any corresponding news releases.
My "GUESS" is this:
I believe the Nature Medicine article will be published Sunday September 6 and they:
1) either don't want to have to take questions - in a CC held after the publication date - regarding the lack of impact that the long awaited and previously touted article may have due to its subject matter being "ancient history" because of the long lag time between submittal and publication, OR
2) They want to get started with their long awaited campaign to push the pps over a buck by leading with positive (hopefully very positive) cash flow news before the Nature Medicine publication date. I "HOPE" they then have a group of news items planned to follow up the Nature article with that includes more very positive cancer trial updates.
Anything other than these news items is too much of an unknown for me make a prediction on. Of course these predictions could be way off base either way too. Just felt like voicing them.
Jessme, what is the motivation for posting this link? It wasn't a smart move, especially for someone who claims to be long in this stock. That YouTube piece is most likely legally actionable (no I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure we can get as many lawyers on either side of my "actionable" statement as we want). You are just helping to spread an extremely detrimental picture of PPHM. You should have just written an email to PPHM and let them know of the YouTube piece and let them handle any response but all you did was help spread a negative opinion of this company.
Thanks ENTDOC for the info!
If anyone wants to see the information prior to October the paper is available now for 40 dollars on the NeurosugeryOnline site. Just need to register on the site and then pay for the article. I just spent over 200 dollars for a Nature Medicine subscription a couple of months ago. I can't bring myself to spend 40 dollars for this article. Must be my cheap side coming through today. I'm hoping someone on this site has access to this information and will share it so we won't have to wait until October. I will share anything of interest from Nature Medicine (or Nature Materials if for some reason you interested in that subject matter).
Has this August 2009 NeurosurgeryOnline article been discussed or posted on this site yet?
Efficacy of a Novel Intratumoral Radio Immunotherapeutic Agent Cotara Delivered via Convection-Enhanced Delivery in Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme: An Initial Single Institutional Experience with 8 Cases: 980
Found at this link:
http://journals.lww.com/neurosurgery/Citation/2009/08000/Efficacy_of_a_Novel_Intratumoral_Radio.108.aspx
I don't have access to this information. Does anyone here know anything about this?
Thanks CJ and thanks for all the effort you and KT put into this site.
That explains my confusion with that article and its June 14 date and not being in this August issue.
However, I'm not all that disappointed. Based on Nature Medicine chief editor's response to my email (the one I posted yesterday) its not uncommon at all for a paper to take up to 10 to 12 months to work through the peer review process and get published. Also, based on other examples of time lines for publishing papers in Nature journals (provided by someone on this board yesterday or earlier today) it would seem that the next 2 months are probably the sweet spot for time required for getting papers published in Nature.
It will be a huge disappointment to me if we don't get this information made public in time to get whatever positive effect it may have for stock price increase prior to the October deadline and we don't have anything else ready to publish to boost price.
I realize PPHM management has absolutely zero control over the Haynes article in Nature Medicine but I will be judging them on whatever other contingency plans they may have to boost this stock price to get us out from under this de-listing issue. However, I'm quite aware that lacking 50.1 % stock ownership my opinion is worthless.
I agree with a number of the others whose intuition (gained from acute observation of this stock and the associated news over an extended period of time) that there is a very positive news event that will occur very soon, but the reality is we just don't know - at least I don't.
I wish BOT would provide another morale boost.
What a poker game this turning into. You gotta love it :)
Thanks MM
Microbe Man - You stated the following;
"One thing that I just noticed is that a "perspective" for a future issue of Nature Medicine outlines broadly neutralizing HIV antibodies suggesting that the next issue may have several papers related to this topic."
Could you please give me some more guidance as to where you found this. I've been looking for it for the last half hour and haven't had any luck. I apologize for being impatient and not spending more time and finding it myself. FYI-I do have a subscription to Nature Medicine if that is required to see this info. Please help
Thanks.
Today.
It was my understanding that one of the Chavi sourced posts stated it was submitted in May. After researching more I see that it was in the May CHAVI update report and the paper was stated to be submitted in 2009. So I guess it could still be imminent then. I apologize for this confusion.
I'm getting over anxious to see this info. I'm trying to decide whether to buy more now (while I believe its still very, very cheap) or wait to see about the split issue. Its my opinion that the highest probability of moving this stock lies with the solid news that the anti-viral effect of Bavi is "add your won adjectives here". The only other anti-viral information that Peregrine has is tied up in secrecy with the DTRA work.
I feel fairly confident that the Duke paper will provide the information I'm seeking, one way or the other. Now that I know that the paper may have been submitted as early as January, I realize that there is still a very good chance that the info will come out before the NASDAQ deadline.
I would have thought that the cancer news provided to date would have moved this stock up. I think the cancer news has been tremendous to date. The problem with cancer is that the goal is long term survival or cure. The fact is that this info takes a long time to prove itself and there is nothing we can do about that. Unless we get news like constantly increasing ORRs or more CRs before the NASDAQ deadline I don't think the cancer news is going to be the big motivating news to move this stock before the deadline.
I love hearing the cancer updates. There hasn't been one disappointment yet. The only disappointment I've seen with the cancer trials is the lack of a complete cure for the entire population by the end of the first stage's treatment cycle (and I know that to be a very unrealistic expectation).
I'm not holding my breath for any partnering news. Mostly because I personally don't want to see a partnership until we can't possibly proceed on our own any more, while at the same time having progressed these anti-viral and anti-cancer products so far through the trials that it becomes unquestioned that Bavi is the supreme anti-cancer and anti-viral platform for the future.
I am very greedy too. I try to balance that with my conscience all the time. I do this by telling myself that as long as Peregrine's livelihood is tied to Bavi, Bavi will have no better, more motivated advocate than Peregrine. Only if BP pays HUGE bucks will it be motivated to ensure Bavi's progress. A pre-mature deal will risk getting this drug to market at all and those who need it most would then suffer the most (how's that for a rationalization).
Personally I think this company has a great future. I've only been invested in it for two years but at least I've weathered the worst of it (I hope I don't jinx anything here). Sorry for the long post. Just wanted to get my views across.
Let Down - I'll just have to stop holding my breath regarding Bavi anti-viral info out of Duke - Emboldened by my previous success with the Nature Medicine editor I tried again and asked directly about the Haynes paper. I didn't expect an answer (as I had tried before) but at least this time I got a response. Here is the reply:
thanks for your query. i regret to say, however, that it is not our policy to make any comments on unpublished manuscripts.
as a general note, though, i can tell you that a paper submitted in may to any nature journal is unlikely to appear published within three months. papers often go through multiple rounds of review, and 10-12 months delays are not uncommon.
best wishes
juan carlos lopez
Nature Medicine Monthly Print Issue info
Just some general info regarding when we should be looking for the print edition of Nature Medicine. I contacted Nature Medicine to find out if there is a regular schedule for the issue of the monthly Medicine journal and I received this reply:
thanks for your query.
the august issue will appear on thursday, august 6th.
every month, the issue appears on or around the 7th. this is because the production schedule of our different journals is staggered in order to facilitate their handling at the printing plant, and nature medicine has one of the last slots in the cycle.
best.
juan carlos lopez
Dr. Juan Carlos Lopez
Chief Editor
Nature Medicine
75 Varick Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY
10013 USA
Why do you think we have to wait until September or October. The August issue hasn't yet been released and even if it isn't in the August print issue there is still the whole month of August where AOPs come out a minimum of twice a week.
Today's new Nature Medicine AOPs have been posted. A couple new HIV related articles but none from Barton Haynes. Jessme, I'm very interested in what's in the Haynes paper because I want to have some insight of where the anti-virus potential of Bavi is. We don't have very much data of its efficacy to date. Just bits and drabs. The Haynes paper appears to be the only source of of pending information regarding Bavi anti-virus information and I'd certainly like to see.
The new July issue of Nature Medicine is posted and Barton Hayne's paper did not make the print version for July. We will have to continue to wait for it to show up in the Advanced Online Publications. I shelled out the money for a subscription to Nature Medicine to make sure I can read the entire article when it comes out.
I'm correcting my post basted on Mr Stein's post; I should have said ALL have MET OR EXCEEDED the mean survival time. Still, my conclusion stands that it is VERY statistically significant.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first time that its been stated that ALL patients have met or exceeded that mean survival time of 6 months. To me that is VERY statistically significant. We have 65 people enrolled and that is a statistically significant number expecially when 100% have exceeded the current MEAN survival time.
I'm a relatively new poster. My position is long.
Pre-Mkt volume starting to pick up - over 200K and prices to .92
Hi everyone. I'm new to posting on this site but I've been watching in the background for about 2 years since I started taking a long position in PPHM.
I don't believe this information has been posted yet but I think it is something to keep in mind. I found this in the Nature Journal's web site in the section dealing with peer review and embargo policies. It's interesting to me that the media has the information about upcoming important papers at least 1 week prior to publication. With the current perceived importance attached to the Duke paper submitted to Nature Medicine, I believe that the knowledge that the media has their hands on this info a week before public release could be relevant.
"Communication with the media
Material submitted to Nature journals must not be discussed with the media, except in the case of accepted contributions, which can be discussed with the media no more than a week before the publication date under our embargo conditions. We reserve the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if this condition is broken.
Each Nature journal produces and distributes to a registered list a press release summarizing the content of the next issue's publication. Journalists are encouraged to read the full version of any papers they wish to cover, and are given the names of corresponding authors, together with phone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses. They receive access to the full text of papers about a week before publication on a password-protected website, together with other relevant material (for example, an accompanying News and Views article, and any extra illustrations provided by the authors). The content of the press release and papers is embargoed until the time and date clearly stated on the press release.
Papers that are deemed especially newsworthy are highlighted by a brief summary on the press release for that journal, written by the editors and the press office. Authors may therefore receive calls or emails from the media during this time; we encourage them to cooperate with journalists so that media coverage of their work is accurate and balanced. Authors whose papers are scheduled for publication may also arrange their own publicity (for instance through their institutional press offices), but they must strictly adhere to our press embargo and are advised to coordinate their own publicity with our press office.
The Nature journals believe that their embargo serves scientists, authors, journalists and the public. Our policy is to release information about our content in a way that provides fair and equal access to the media, allowing it to provide informed comment based on the complete and final version of the paper that is to be published. Authors and their institutions' press offices are able then to interact with the media ahead of publication, and benefit from the subsequent coverage.
The benefits of peer review as a means of giving journalists confidence in new work published in journals are self-evident. Premature release to the media denies journalists that confidence. It also removes journalists' ability to obtain informed reactions about the work from independent researchers in the field.
For all these reasons, Nature journals have refused to publish papers prematurely released to the press. Journalists who break our embargoes have been removed from the press-release circulation list, and we shall continue to use this sanction when appropriate. "
http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/embargo.html
Jessme summarized this info in post 36010