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.
The pinks and OTC stocks are the wild west of the stock market, you'll never see the regulators get into them.
Gary
You're right, it was a typo.
Gary
I know that CAR-T is high risk, I know some leukemia patients have received it successfully when coming out of remissions where nothing else was working. My Dr. said it's not something he ever wanted to have to try on me.
One of the biggest problems with CAR-T, as I understand it from my Dr. is that it's effective lifetime is limited to a number of days, it may get a cure in those days, but if not, it's not the answer. Our vaccine, on the other hand, increases the patient's T-cell count dramatically, they're not modified T-cells, but they just keep working and the numbers keep building as the patient gets additional doses of the vaccine. I believe that this is the key to why our vaccine works, and the addition of certain other therapeutics make it work better.
Gary
City of Hope working on brain cancer with CAR-T, here's a link to info I was sent:
https://www.cityofhope.org/brain-cancer-no-match-immunotherapy-trial?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MKT_NTR_Supporter_Breakthroughs_Valadez_20240307
My Dr. was one of the leaders in CAR-T when it was in its infancy. This is only in Phase 1, but I still believe the more tools a Dr. has, the better. I suspect that DCVax-L + will become the SOC in brain, and many other cancers, but I can't say all that + represents, in some cases it might include the COH CAR-T therapy.
Gary
Where did you find this, I see $.584 as the high of the day.
Gary
I'm purely guessing, but believe that it was DCVax-L given out of the UK compassionate use program, but Dr. Mulholland learning from the work being done at UCLA, etc. used a protocol that differs from anything currently in a trial.
It's clear that the Dr. know all about DCVax-L, he was chosen to make Dr. Liau's presentation at SUNY when Dr. Liau developed Covid in the UK. In general many similar presentations I've seen were not specific about what product was being used. Clearly if it was DCVax-L it would have been out of the UK program as no other trial in the UK was enrolling patients.
Gary
I think a great deal depends on your definition of eminent. For a vaccine that's been in development for decades, I'd say an expected approval in the next 3 to 4 months could be called eminent. Certainly, it's not happening tomorrow, I'd put the odds of happening this month at no more than 10%, but next month could be 40% or higher, by May might be 80% and by June 95% IMHO of course.
The peer reviewed article in Nature may come sooner, or later, if we've learned anything about peer reviewed Journal articles it's that you really can't predict when they'll happen, we just know that it's in peer review.
This is not something that only happens to NWBO, I have a position in AVLX and they too have been holding on for ages for a peer reviewed article, and no investor seems to know what Journal it will appear in. At least we know that Nature is where we'll see the article.
Gary
The goal of going on a major exchange is something we all can agree to, if it's done the right way. The right way is by largely building the share price. The wrong way is a huge reverse split. When the stock was selling for a nickel a 1 for 100 would give you a $5 price if the market cap was maintained, but history says it won't be. In fact I doubt if $4 would hold long enough to get on the Nasdaq. Perhaps a 1 for 200 would make it, but the market cap would be 50% or less than before the reverse split. It's not the right way to do it.
What is the right way, first build the share price to $1 or more, while I'd very much welcome that and would go along with say a 1 for 3, 4, or even 5 to approach the Nasdaq, but frankly if you can get the share price to $1, you could go on the AMEX and continue to build until you're at $4 or more and go for the Nasdaq, or you could just stay on the OTC until you qualify for the Nasdaq with revenue growth. Immediately the revenue might be entirely from Core Optics, but I bought this for it's battery technology, it that's recognized and a major contract comes in, it could be what really moves it to the Nasdaq. It takes patience, but if you do it the quick and dirty way with a major reverse split, you may be on the Nasdaq, but your market cap is a small fraction of what it had been.
I hope the Core Optic people who may be taking control do so in such a way as to build market cap, not tear it down.
Gary
I certainly hope you're right. I've got to believe that current shareholders will have less than 50% of the equity in the company after the merger, but it can be done without an R/S if that's what they choose to do. It could involve preferred shares that don't vest for some time, so they don't exceed the currently authorized shares. The thing is, 50% or less of something good may be better than 100% of something fighting for its very existence.
The other question might be, will anything happen with our battery technology that adds substantial equity before the merger actually occurs. That could dramatically change the way the merger will finally be structured.
Gary
You're right, but something we need to realize is that many cancers take years to kill, or cure, so while in cancers like pancreatic the benefits may be clear quickly, others might take a decade or more to actually determine the benefits. Hopefully Drs. and patients will have choices, if they choose to go with DCVax-L and products like Poly-ICLC and Keytruda, and forgo certain costly chemos, insurance will agree to pay at least what they'd have paid for the SOC.
I'm not suggesting that all chemo can be eliminated, what I believe is the Drs. can make determinations of what they believe will be best for their patients. I expect that in certain cancers different therapeutics will work better than the ones that work in GBM, Drs. will work to determine what works best.
I frankly don't know if, or how much, Dr. Liau and others who worked on the GBM trial will participate with the use of DCVax-L in other none brain related solid cancers. I feel that they should have a voice because of their experiences, but Drs. with expertise in those specific cancers should lead the trials.
When I was initially diagnosed with leukemia, I immediately worked with the oncologist who treated me after I was treated for sebaceous carcinoma found by my dermatologist, and found I had a kidney cancer which was dealt with. He wasn't an expert in leukemia, but started me on the protocol that was suggested for it. It called for eight specific courses of chemo, but after four of them a catheter infection delayed treatment, and during the delay I spoke with the heads of hematology at both UCLA and City of Hope, I was on Gleevec, an oral chemo at that time while the infection was being treated. It was very fortunate, both experts wanted to see how I progressed on the Gleevec and suggested that I might not require the other four rounds of chemo. Both also told me to go for stem cells on achieving remission while my oncologist thought I shouldn't do it, if I came out of remission, he said they'd get me back in then do the stem cells. I was shown that achieving a second remission was often far tougher, and often it didn't happen. Furthermore at three years, if I remember correctly, 70% were coming out of remission, it may have been lower, but it was significant. Had I not had the catheter infection I'd probably have had the additional courses of chemo, instead it was pill chemo, but I switched from Gleevec to two others most of the time before the stem cells. Heavy chemo is done just prior to stem cells as your own immune system has to be wiped out prior to the new stem cells taking over. I had a 12 point match, which is as good as it gets, but I still have issues caused by the donor stem cells, like an allergy to many sun tan lotions.
I bring this up because I'm certain that other experts would have treated me differently and in fact I met a man my age who came to City of Hope because the Mayo Clinic wouldn't do stem cells because of his age. I actually only recently learned that I was one of the first in my 70's to get them at my age at City of Hope, but UCLA and Cedars Sinai both would have offered them. Now City of Hope is doing it for patients in their 80's. The reason hospitals shied away from older patients was thought to be higher mortality numbers, City of Hope has excellent numbers while including us seniors. I continue to be checked by COH roughly quarterly and enjoy my visits with my Dr.
I suspect that in much of the world I'd not have been offered stem cells at all unless I seeked them out myself. My point is that treatment will be very different throughout the world. Even if DCVax-L is readily available some Drs. will only consider using it where labels say it should be used, whereas some may use if in practically every solid cancer case, even if no basis exists for doing so. We keep hearing about people with GBM using other products, one reason is not knowing about it at all, the other is it's unavailability unless you go to the UK and have the funds to acquire it. In most of the world it ought to become the SOC for brain cancers rather quickly after the initial four approvals, as for other cancers it will vary dramatically both based on the country and it's policies on off label treatment, and based on the Dr. and their belief that it can be of benefit to their patient. It will take years before Drs. really know how best to use DCVax's and where they're most, and least effective.
Gary
I'm really lost in all the history, I hope they're doing more than purchasing a shell to go public, but if they're purely in control we'll really have to see how it plays out. I bought the stock for its superior battery technology, if in fact they're not intending to advance that, I really don't know what direction I'd take. I would hope that their core business adds to what we've developed, but the key there is someone committing to utilize our technology in their batteries.
On more than one occasion I've had companies purchased as shells, by the time they finished existing shareholders owned less than 10% of the company and frankly the new company didn't do well for the shareholders. It doesn't mean it can't happen, but it's not what I'd prefer to be happening. If we end up with a small R/S I could live with that, but if it's anywhere near a 100 to 1, which I've seen in other companies, frankly we're screwed.
Hopefully the shares rebound some tomorrow, if not, perhaps when more info is out, but if the word is that a big R/S is coming I question if it can ever be a good investment unless we average down, which I already did today.
In NWBO, many long term investors had bought at $10 or more a decade or more ago. Most have now brought their average price to well below $1 and are positioned for tremendous share price growth beginning with UK approval which should come by mid-year. Personally I've only been involved for a few years and my average is slightly below what it's selling for today. If I'm right, $10 a share and more will have returned by sometime next year, or sooner.
Gary
I hope you are right, it is rare that a R/S works as intended without dramaticly reducing the market cap. I know we are a penny stock today, but one major contract could change that forever. I'd like to see them continue working to get the contract.
Gary
I believe that the way a company doesn't require a vote on a reverse split is if they control 50 percent of the shares themselves or with concurring Institutions. I have no idea if they have that much control.
Gary
Abeta,
Are your figures for the UK only, or the world. If the world, I think they're low.
Frankly if NWBO contracts for all services in manufacturing, storing and supplying the vaccine to each patient I'd be thrilled if the received $100K or even $50K for each patient. That money would be received with virtually almost no money being spent by the company for it. Depending on how the distribution of the EDEN unit is handled, that too could be a major profit center as long as the number of EDEN units was expanding. As I see it, with the adoption of DCVax-L, and ultimately Direct for many forms of solid cancers, demand for the EDEN unit could be great for over a decade or two.
If as I believe the EDEN's are leased and maintained by the company, just lease renewals could be a major profit center as the numbers in use each year grow for the foreseeable future. I'm frankly uncertain if every disposable cassette will pass through the company, or be supplied by St. Gobain's Glass directly to the manufacturing site, but regardless, I'd expect that NWBO would receive something for each cassette that was delivered.
Of course I may be wrong, the company may do everything themselves, the cost would be quite high, but they'd earn more per patient. I just don't believe they're set up to operate in that manner.
At one time, many years ago, IMGN had it's own production facilities. At some point they abandoned that approach, they went with CDMO's, who for all I know purchase the companies facilities. I believe that CRL and Advent are completely set up to perform these function for NWBO once approvals come in. I don't know if UK approval will be sufficient to formalize the CRL agreement, or it will take approval in the US or elsewhere.
I don't know the total population of the world being diagnosed with a solid cancer annually. I believe it's well into the millions. Can you imagine how big we could be if 5% to 10% of all with solid cancer gained treatment with DCVax's. For talking purposes lets say a half million patients a year were having a DCVax made, at 50 batch a year per EDEN, that's 10,000 EDEN's. If they leased for $10,000 a year that would be $100 million a year. I doubt if NWBO would be spending much more than a million or so in maintaining all the units. At a P/E of 10 that's $1 billion added to the market cap. I think these numbers are reasonably conservative, but I welcome others thoughts about them.
Gart
I agree, hopefully the demand will result in at least the UK authorities expediting approval of the EDEN unit, provided NWBO is receiving completed units from their contractor. We know that they do have limited capacity in London. Frankly I don't know if the US would approve a deal that had CRL making the vaccine here and exporting it to the UK before the vaccine is approved by our FDA.
In my mind I'm wondering if any of the European authorities could piggyback off the UK approval without a formal submission. I believe when the UK was part of the EU such a submission would have applied to the entire EU, but I don't know that it was the case. Germany seems most eager to move on using DCVax-L, if individual European countries can approve for only their country, it wouldn't surprise me if Germany was the first.
By the way, I figured that day 90 would be the very earliest that we could be in an approval window, with us at day 78, we'd be less than two weeks away. Not saying it will happen that quickly, just that I can't imagine it happening earlier than that. More likely we go closer to day 150, but I believe it will happen somewhat before then.
Gary
Should the company be able to put the presentation on the website after the conference concludes?
What's really needed to make such presentations work as well as they could is the Journal being out, and the presenter being able to speak to, and enhance, what's in the Journal. That may not be the case for this presentation, but some day, hopefully soon, it will be.
I have no experience as to what the big conferences are for the diseases we're working on. In cancer I know people target on ASCO, AACR, etc. but I don't know about this. Can someone indicate when the really big conferences are held and whether they believe the company will be making presentations at one or more of these conferences.
As I gather it, the first real news we can anticipate is either filing an MAA, or issuance of a Journal. The company has more control of the filing of the MAA, but they may be reliant on contractors for certain aspects of the submission. As for a peer reviewed Journal, they have little or no control, if modifications are requested it's likely the lead clinician would coordinate making any changes. Like almost everything in biotech's things take longer than investors think, and often longer than management thinks as well.
Gary
They are ready, the Sawston facility has been approved in the UK where they're applying for approval. I'm not saying the facility can meet the full demand, but I believe capacity is being increased and the EDEN approval may be possible by that time. The point is, they can sell the DCVax-L from day one, the demand may be many times what they can initially be delivered, but as long as the cancer is being properly preserved they'll have an opportunity to get caught up.
I believe that once approval occurs the company could make further announcements on how they intend to meet demand.
Gary
I could be mistaken, however I believe that either a reverse split or increasing authorized shares would require a shareholders vote. If I'm correct about that, personally I'd prefer more shares being authorized. My experience at NWBO seems to indicate the way their options and preferreds are structured they're not being counted toward the O/S. It's certainly a debt that must be addressed in the future, but shareholders will be only too happy to address it if our share price were in dollars, not pennies. One major contract could potentially do that.
Gary
My primary investment is NWBO, I recommend it to all as potentially having explosive growth potential as it's vaccine which is made from the tumor while trialed in GBM should be effective in all solid tumors. They have applied for UK approval. I bring it up because like here, they have options and preferreds that add to over the 1.7 billion shares authorized, but the holders all seem to be working with the company. I expect that once they have approval and a much higher share price they will get more shares authorized, but it wouldn't surprise me if once revenue justifies it if they acquire the options and preferreds.
My point is, the high share count isn't a killer when the earning potential can be in double digit billions, or more. Firms like Apple and Tesla have billions of shares outstanding, it hasn't hurt them at all. If our technology ultimately ends up in the batteries of many of the different vehicle producers, I believe that we too have earning potential in the billions, if not double digit or better billions. One billion in earnings should support a market cap of $10 to $30 billion, IE a P/E of 10 to 30. If our O/S went to 2 billion, that's a $5 to $15 share price on a billion in earnings. Personally I would rather see that than a reverse split that could practically halve the market cap at the time if it goes the way of most reverse splits.
The really big news ought to deal with companies using our battery technology, as well as sales from the new acquisition, it shouldn't be about the fear of a reverse split. If the current holder of the company being acquired take preferred shares it won't even show as shares outstanding. As the company grows, if the holders of preferred shares need cash, they can certainly convert gradually and sell as they deem necessary to do so.
I'm new to the company, but I've seen how NWBO has worked for a few years and while they've yet to have serious money in the bank, they continue to operate on routinely selling some shares, and taking some loans. My point is, you can continue to operate this way until you have the success that an approval of their vaccine will bring. For us, a major contract to use our battery technology would provide the same sort of success.
Many here have much knowledge of the batteries, which I'm trusting, if our technology proves to be the basis for both current type batteries and future solid state batteries, I see no way that this company doesn't achieve at least a double digit billion dollar market cap, or be purchased for double digit billions or more.
Gary
DD, they are saying that they could go either way. Historically they have kept small while contracting out most of the work. I see no reason to believe that they will operate differently with approvals.
Gary
Companies generally either announce when they file, or when they get notification of acceptance, some companies PR both.
Gary
I don't know nearly as much as many here, only invested a little over a week, but I still believe in the company and think the stock dramatically overreacted to what in time should be good news. I doubled my position at $.017.
Gary
DD, I never thought that NWBO intended to market, manufacture, store, and distribute their products themselves. I see Advent doing that in the UK and perhaps elsewhere in Europe, and CRL eventually everywhere else. With the EDEN and trackable disposable cartridges they'll be able to track virtually every transaction, and they'll be in control as the EDEN's will be leased and maintained by them, but others will be doing the work and sharing the income for every batch of DCVax-L that's made.
Of course I've also previously mentioned that others could have EDEN's leased to them and their too the cassettes would track every new batch that was made. The EDEN is really the key to it all and once approved it can be utilized in the manner the company chooses.
Many here believe that in mass production the EDEN will cost less than $20,000 to make, if they're off by a factor of 5, IE $100,000, the sale of the first batch of DCVax-L should more than pay for it. At 50 or so batches a year it will be very profitable. I certainly can't say how much money NWBO will receive for each batch that's made, but in house they'll be doing very little work to get it done.
In the beginning I believe the demand will be far greater than the supply, so marketing will have more to do with scheduling the vaccine production than having to go into the field to sell the product. In time sufficient EDEN's and other equipment may be available to meet all demands, and a sales force may be desirable to increase production further, but by that time it will already be a blockbuster product many times over.
No doubt Advent will grow substantially, but CRL is already quite large, it will grow some, but should be able to easily handle what will be happening. I suspect that over time many CRL facilities will be making and handling DCVax-L rather than have everything come out of one of their many plants.
Of course this is my belief, it hasn't been contractually established. As for the Annual Report, it's loaded with statement on the problems the company could encounter, the SEC demands such language in every Annual Report, even from the most profitable corporations. In the case of production, etc. I don't believe they ever intended to do it all in house, but clearly if they did, it would be a major concern.
Let's get the UK approval, the EDEN approval, etc. then we can worry about all these other issues as we go for approval from all the other regulators.
Gary
I still don't understand exactly what the stakeholders are looking for. If it's dollar based, give them whatever number of shares are required to meet their current dollar demand. Giving up 100 times the number of shares needed after a 1 for 100 reverse split, I'd rather they got that many shares. If you do the 1 for 100 and the share price falls by 50% you'll end up giving them even greater equity because of the way stocks react to major reverse splits. The technology here could easily be worth a multi-billion dollar market cap, so what if the share count is a billion.
Gary
I don't believe anyone really knows if approval is possible without further trials, nor can we be certain that they won't go for approval with a different regulator first. Approval with the FDA is easier if another regulator has approved and benefits are clearly being seen.
I know many believe the FDA is the Gold Standard and should be sought after regardless, but frankly if they add years to initial approval, and it's available from another major regulator immediately, it's foolish to not gain approval and acceptance from the general public elsewhere instead.
60 Minutes did a great story on how to American Drs. were working out of 5-Star foreign hospitals and resorts because they could get life saving drugs there that our FDA still wouldn't approve. Costs were lower than treatment here and included recovery in resorts that were truly excellent until the patient could return home without needing further foreign treatment.
I believe the FDA is trying to improve, but sometimes it's just far easier to work around them and come back to them when benefits are undeniable elsewhere.
Gary
Building the share price by news and earnings is the right way to meet Nasdaq requirements. News of Ford or anyone else deciding to use batteries made with the company's technology could achieve that if investors jump in at higher prices. If such news didn't quite achieve the $4 a share required for the Nasdaq, I'd prefer a listing on the Amex, who's requirements are lower, to a R/S with all it's negatives, but if necessary, perhaps something like 1 for 2 or 3 would be tolerable to investors. Companies that do 1 for 10 or worse often are down so far after the R/S that the goal they were attempting to meet is missed. Better to build the old fashioned way, good news and increasing earnings.
Gary
You're right, but it didn't fail either. What did it do? It set up the company to need to meet with the regulators before knowing how to proceed.
The regulators might well agree that an approval for adult Rett is justified, and youth's could use it off label if their Drs. choose to prescribe it. They could require further trials, or perhaps approve, but do a Phase 4 for all receiving the drug, or perhaps just all juniors doing so.
The trial showed some sustained benefits for patients using the drug, and the company was following up to see that it continued to be sustained. I believe it was clear that those on the placebo who were thought to improve failed to do so long term, but they weren't being examined for that long. My point is the FDA or other regulator can find a reason to approve the drug, if they so choose, or demand further trials with an improved design, if that's their choice.
If the drug is approved for AD, it's use for other diseases off label is likely and with sufficient anecdotal evidence insurance will pay for its use.
If I were running the company, I'd go for the first approval that discussions with the regulators sounded like what they'd accept without reservations. If they suggested applying for multiple indications, I'd go for it, but if AD was advised, it would be an NDA for AD alone. In the worst case the regulators insist on further trials before approving anything, I don't believe that to be the case, but if it were, better to do the trials than have only failures from NDA submissions.
Gary
The closest I've ever been to shorting a stock is writing covered calls against it and taking interest for lending shares. All my stock buys have been with the intention of being long term holds. I generally buy a small position, then more as I get to know the company better, and like what I've learned. NWBO is now by far my biggest holding, IMGN had been bigger before the buyout. I've added nearly 80K shares since then.
You may think what you wish, but I'll assure you I'm not short this, or any other stock.
Gary
I'll agree with you Beach that if demand is tremendous for the stock it could go substantially higher before the Institutions could reach majority ownership, but in time they will. Much will depend on whether the company does a partnership that brings in substantial money, if so, substantial dilution won't be required, though it may be part of that partnership. Without such a funding event, I'd not be surprised to see the company raising hundreds of millions, or more, to support rapid expansion of both production capability as well as new trials. All those shares would go to Institutions.
We'd all be thrilled if your scenario plays out. If however those who believe that UK approval will bring $3 to $5 are correct, while that would be satisfying to many individual investors, I suspect the company will want to raise substantial funds and the Institutions will only be too happy to take all they're willing to issue. Many investors who say they'll hold will be tempted by the higher prices and some, if not all their holdings will be sold off regardless of what they've previously said.
Personally I'm looking forward to when options are made on NWBO. While I don't intend to sell shares, I'd have no qualms about selling out of the money calls on say 5% of my total holdings, or less. I'd time my sales till after a substantial runup, when the options are at premium prices, and I'm expecting some retrenching before the stock advances again. I have enough shares that this could bring in substantial money, and cost me nothing if I'm right in my moves.
I do agree with you that if the right news comes out our share price could go well into double digits virtually nearly instantly, I just don't know that we'll get that kind of news, I don't think UK approval by itself will take it that far, but if it's accompanied by major media coverage, that could be a very different matter. If the share price did reach a point that I felt couldn't possibly be sustained I'd certainly consider placing trailing stop losses for some of my shares with the intention of buying back after the retrenching, that or selling covered calls if they're available.
Gary
If you want the FDA to consider approving any product an NDA or BLA must be filed. Of course it wouldn't be done if in discussions it was clearly stated that they wanted something that you couldn't provide yet.
Gary
Let's discuss Institutional ownership. It's my belief that very few Institutions have charters permitting ownership of penny stocks. If anyone knows of those that can, I'd love to see a list. Perhaps more importantly, most Institutions not only have bottom line prices that they can invest in, most often in excess of $5, but they also are supposed to be industry based. Some might be limited to just biotech's but more would fall into the general description of healthcare. Right now, if we truly have Institutional investors they should be in penny stocks and healthcare, unless they're completely unlimited on what they can purchase. If they're valid Institutions they should file their holding for every quarter, but not until half way through the next quarter.
This is not to say we have no Institutional Investors. Any Institution can invest at the beginning of a quarter and sell by the end of the quarter and never report ownership. MM's are happy to facilitate such ownership, so we'll never really know.
I would suspect that when our share price exceeds $1 we'll pick up some Institutions, many more when over $5, but some in between. I also suspect that many of us, myself included, may hold more shares than many of the reporting Institutions. When an Institution buys in, and holds over a quarter they must report, it doesn't matter if their positions in the hundreds, thousands, or millions, they report. Historically it's likely that by the time our share price reaches $10 it will be majority owned by Institutions. In part it will mean that many of us have sold, but it also will represent new offerings from the company that will be completely sold to Institutions.
With success in approvals and a share price over $3 to $5 I suspect that shareholders will have no problem with authorizing more shares if the company requests it. When those shares are issued you can bet they'll all go to Institutions, or into an equity partnership. It won't happen as soon as it's authorized, just as the shares outstanding haven't risen to the 1.7 billion shares we've authorized, though if all options were converted, they might. The company can apparently allow those options to ride practically as long as they wish as they're in the hands of investors that they're friendly with, or management. NWBO in many years, perhaps in excess of a decade, could have perhaps 5 billion shares outstanding and still be selling in triple digits, but that would assume that DCVax's are being utilized in practically every cancer as part of the SOC. It would give NWBO a market cap that falls close to that of companies like Apple, not impossible, but it won't happen overnight, and of course they could partner, but not be bought out.
Gary
George, I believe in GBM the DCVax-L was used with the SOC I believe, I don't know that chemos were eliminated. I'm not suggesting that they can't be, but I believe that will have to be determined either in trials, or anecdotally in treatment as Drs. work with a variety of protocols. I suspect that treatment will change, but not all chemo will be eliminated. I really don't know if Keytruda doesn't fall under the general term of chemo, at least to many people.
There is little doubt that DCVax-L will be a paradigm change in the treatment of cancer, but it will be an improvement, not a cure for all. In time we may find that some have been cured, and perhaps they wouldn't have been without it, but we'll never know for certain. We know with GBM when added to Poly-ICLC and/or Keytruda 50% or more are living 5 years or longer, a tremendous improvement, but it's too early to say if one or all are cured.
There are many new therapeutics achieving advances, but I believe others don't use the patient to create the therapeutic. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to hear about any others. It's very possible that others, besides Poly-ICLC and Keytruda, will prove to be far more effective when they're used with DCVax-L. My point is, it takes more than DCVax-L to cure many cancers, but DCVax-L may be the key to improvement in many of them.
Gary
It's possible that you're right, and I for one wouldn't complain about that. You're talking about a gain of not quite 400% to nearly 600%, is that really something we should complain about.
As for what we should be worth when all four regulators approve, and after we have partners at least supporting some of our trials if not a general partnership in the company where should we be. I'm in doubt that it will all happen this year, though it's not yet impossible. I'd say the odds of it happening before the end of next year is 90% or greater. As for what it's worth, certainly we'd be in double digits, the only question is just how high. Based on today's prices the least gain would be nearly 2000%, but it could be substantially higher than that. If we got a buyout at $20, which most investors believe to be too low, that's over 3600%. Frankly it could go much higher than that, but you have to give it time.
Gary
i believe that from the largest to the smallest companies new contracts take longer than investors think they will. The difference is that large companies have many of them coming to fruition, so the illusion is that they happen faster.
Anyone that's ever dealt with the DOD will attest to how long it takes, unless an emergency or some other priority is tied to the contract. A company may be able to purchase faster, but even there unless you're the one writing the check, things take time.
Too many investors bail out of companies on early success after holding for substantial time only to watch that success just continue to levels they'd never imagined.
Gary
i believe that from the largest to the smallest companies new contracts take longer than investors think they will. The difference is that large companies have many of them coming to fruition, so the illusion is that they happen faster.
Anyone that's ever dealt with the DOD will attest to how long it takes, unless an emergency or some other priority is tied to the contract. A company may be able to purchase faster, but even there unless you're the one writing the check, things take time.
Too many investors bail out of companies on early success after holding for substantial time only to watch that success just continue to levels they'd never imagined.
Gary
While I agree, there is a lot of great information in the Annual Report, though I've only skimmed through it. I frankly hate the way Annual Reports are presented. When I was much younger the Annual Report looked like a magazine highlighting everything about a company. I really don't remember a great deal of caution therein. Today, even for the most successful companies, much space has to be given to all the risks that may be involved in owning stocks in general, and that stock in particular. I frankly hate this aspect of the Annual Report.
People who really need most of the report reflecting all that could go wrong really shouldn't be investing in stock at all.
I hope that we can at least get rid of the complaints about not filing on time, they filed for the delay, then only took a couple days of the 2 weeks they were allowed. No big deal.
Gary
As a cancer survivor I believe that many of us do take the advice of the Drs. we choose to treat us, especially if the SOC can be determined to successfully treat the form of cancer we have. In my case, my own oncologist may not have given stem cells on the initial remission, but he put me in contact with the department heads at both UCLA and City of Hope, and both of them said, get the stem cells. I choose City of Hope.
I didn't research each drug I was being treated with, my treatment was working, I had no reason to doubt the quality of the treatment I was receiving. In the reporters case, I suspect that he would have gotten experts opinions, but it sounds like he accepted doing what was considered SOC treatment, and it has worked for him thus far. Five years ago he'd not have been able to enter a trial with DCVax-L, even if he discovered it, his Drs. would have to have known about the compassionate use available at a substantial price in the UK for him to know anything about it. I would suspect that over 90% of current brain surgeons and oncologists who've not been in any way involved with the trial, or a patient that's been in it, have no knowledge of the vaccine. In speaking with the oncologist who referred me to City of Hope about other drugs still in trial but approaching approval, he knew nothing. He indicated that he'd learn about them when they were approved, and then he could use them. I'm not putting down the majority of Drs. I'm merely indicating that they work with what they're authorized to, and they're also open to recommend their patients check with top flite research institutions who may have something better to offer, rather than researching all else that's available themselves.
Patients facing deadly outcomes are wise to do some of their own research, but even there it's doubtful that a GBM patient would run into DCVax-L in the last few years if looking for a trial that had open enrollment. My spinal surgeon, who's also a brain surgeon, knew nothing about it, but knew Dr. Liau and invested shortly after we discussed it. Like most surgeons he does do that many brain surgeries and doesn't look at all the experimental treatment being done with it. I have no idea who was advising the reporter, or how much he looked into it himself, but if he never looked in just the right place, he'd never have heard of DCVax-L. Even today it could benefit him if he has tumor that's been properly preserved, or operable tumor that could make the vaccine.
Gary
Any idea what started this move, it's up about $1 from the low of the day.
Thanks,
Gary
In the past I have seen Nice take many months to get makers of blockbuster products lower the price. I don't think that is the case here, I think that they want DCVAX L and know enough about it based on compassionate use that it will be a go essentially as soon as it is approved.
Gary
Thanks, if you can post a link I would appreciate it. Your description of what they are doing was excellent.
Gary