did the career thing long enough.
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.
two very interesting takeaways from those documents
pphm screwed up ROYALLY, apparently, regardless of what CSM did
pphm is, according to CSM's lawyers, looking for Billions, and at that amount, there won't be a settlement.
I do not like the odds of pphm winning. looks like our managers don't know how to run a company.
if we go back to a buck, i will take my loss and not tell my family. they already think i'm weird enough.
wake up, md.
there has been no deal, there is no deal, and this company is a disgrace.
md. wasn't 'fast track' supposed to make fly? btd would spike us and then we'd probably fade to $1.17.... when will this BOD monetize?!
success is not a foregone conclusion, even if it's not tampered with...
i agree that the trial will tell. which also means we don't know if it works yet, regardless of the literature referenced.
commercialization is important, don't you think?
Joe... i understand what you're saying and I appreciate your opinion, but you are not understanding what I'm saying.
it is not considered fact by either the science or investment communities that Bavi will work effectively in the manner being claimed by Peregrine. If it was universally accepted, we would not be at $1.28.
md...
i certainly believe thorpe said the stuff works, but the fact remains that it is not generally accepted yet by any means.
zavoico's note the other day said that he believes it is an active drug. that is about the same as saying 'i know people question whether this is an active drug or not, and i think it is'. Man, that acnowledges a lot of room for doubt.
and if it is an active drug, why such a lousy target? could it be due to anticipated major dilution?
wook..
'starting to question PPHM'?
where have you been!!!???
something's not right?
that what some of us have been telling you for some time.
not a glowing endorsement from george by any stretch of the imagination. also wondering how anybody can trust his price target considering how many years he's been wrong about it.
sure...
bio.... pphm has posted a hundred jobs in the last 2 years, and headcount never increases. how about connecting those dots!
mazelman... the science may well be awesome. that does not mean the only reason for the price is manipulation. it could be what the long-term bashers say it is, and has been for a long time...lousy, if not crooked, management.
i cannot understand why so many here refuse to accept that the BOD has earned that tarnish.
when will they prove bashers wrong? hasn't happened yet.
and what % down is pphm compared to the biotech index, nasdaq, s&p 500, and dow?
maybe the guy was right about the 2 letters.... there's a bad stench... maybe that's why tustin has been so quiet.
i thought there weren't supposed to be any more buying opportunities.
right.
how is TSRX on this list when Cubist bought the company a year and a half ago?
oy
who can you trust???
regarding short interest...
don't be quick to think current reduced short interest translates to imminent (not eminent :) ) good news.
it's reasonable for shorts to have covered at this level... shorting here would almost require inside information of pending P3 failure... shorts can't make any money unless it takes a huge dump from here.
you can bet that if it gets back to 1.50+, short interest will jump till it gets back to this level.
spank...the one on the yahoo board from the guy who claims to work at pphm, which was copied to this board... says fda has sent pphm 2 letters along the lines of not being in compliance... same guy supposedly knew about king's divorce and posted about it before it was publicly disclosed ... all posted here yesterday or the day before... says the company is all about lies.
of course, several here decided it had to be posted by a paid basher and could not be true. could not have had any factual basis since pphm is the most honorable, up-front communicating organization, except for when they had to withdraw from that conference in europe for personal reasons, and when they announced the dios and stason deals, and so on.
all i know for sure is that this stock is at 1.33 and the market cap is laughable for such an earth-shattering technology, and i feel like an idiot for holding out any longer waiting for it to get back to my dilution-adjusted 'caught a falling knife' re-entry price after the 2012 debacle.
i may just go ahead and take my loss. it's very, very difficult to think this BOD will ever accomplish anything of commercial value with a creation that might already be extending countless lives were it in the hands of a competent company who, btw, gave a crap about retail shareholders. i'm sure i'm not alone thinking like this, but the same old posters will just think i'm the ignorant one with an attitude like that.
yeah, it's all good unless that guy really does work in tustin and we really did get some nasty letters...
great. another thing to worry about.
high five.
the s*it tustin puts out is crap till proven otherwise based on history.
concince us with facts. 10 years is enough.
explain why.
jim...I certainly wish you the best, and you are most fortunate to have that facility and its resources close by....
while you don't seem to recognize many warts in Tustin, your enthusiasm about pphm speaks of what we (long-term posters here, for the most part!) hope will come to pass....
i find it troubling that since we are such a lightning-rod stock (that is not news to Tustin, btw), our BOD refuses to throw bones with ANY meat on them now and then to the faithful.
These many sites have been open long enough that, if recruiting was going well, it shouldn't kill them to say so. Saying it's 'on track' means nothing since there are a hundred ways to justify sluggish enrollment in international trials being ...'expected'.
jim...
and how is it you know that they've recruited a single patient at any of those locations?
hmmm...could cotara and bavi be side by side on the shelf before long?
hard to believe wall street is this stupid, eh?
reality check:
3 of my very best friends died of Liver cancer, NSCLC, and Glioblastoma. Oldest one was 55.
this outfit is taking FOREVER to move this stuff forward while people die too young.
I'd rather have less profit on this...investment...in order to get it in the hands of an entity who can afford to get it to market asap.
then he should have said "within the next 2 years"
TOG..
that King statement clearly does NOT say 'coming yearS'.
that means 365 days from his statement, or he is wrong again.
does NOT have to bounce here.
it's deflated.
thanks, gJh..
don't know why they're sooo arrogant on that other board...
several pphm supporters are a bit overly enthusiastic for sure, but the science is still interesting as immuno stuff becomes better understood. i just try to deal with the gap between current/newer knowledge of the science of anti-PS and prior issues with the company who 'owns' it. i believe that pphm's old reputation may cloud the judgement of some here regarding the science.
many here are quick to say which treatments won't work, for a variety of reasons (including skepticism of scientic claims and biases about BODs), but nobody here knows which ones will.
last i knew, PS isn't a gene.
pphm's trials are almost all ISTs since they are putting their limited resources toward nsclc p3, and as such, last week's PR is only intended to be an indicator.
are IST's supposed to spend the big bucks before they get indications from smaller, less complex trials?
the question of whether or not all drugs in trials are listed in their database for referral isn't muddled...
emergingmed has over 700 drugs in their lung cancer referral database, and they're working with FMI. do you know, for example, if bavituximab is in there, and if not, why not? just asking.
no need to talk down to me. this board doesn't have that as one of its reasons for being.
i am absolutely not suggesting that they could or would. i am saying that it's not necessarily difficult to imagine small outfits being excluded from consideration over one qualification criteria or another. i completely admit that i do not know whether any/all compounds in trials are considered or not, or if there are 'qualification' criteria. is there a simple answer you know of?
so history will always repeat itself and only big bio's will ever have good new drugs (after they buy the little guys?)
based on what i've seen in biotech/FDA over the years, i wouldn't be so sure 'pressure' is never applied. even in fmi...before roche moved to officially have extra...influence...it could be possible.
you cannot deny politics and money are often at play in the industry.
Dew..you mentioned FMI would never direct anybody to PPHM trials..
Of course not....they'd have to be independent and non-biased to do that, wouldn't they? for cryin' out loud...
Media Release
Basel, 12 January 2015
Roche enters a broad strategic collaboration with Foundation Medicine in the field of molecular information in oncology
Collaboration leverages both companies’ strengths to advance the progress of personalized treatments for patients with cancer
Roche to acquire a majority interest in Foundation Medicine (FMI) of up to 56.3% on a fully diluted basis through a tender and acquisition of newly issued shares. Roche will tender for approximately 15.6 million Foundation Medicine shares at USD 50 per share with an aggregate tender value of approximately USD 780 million. Roche will also invest USD 250 million in Foundation Medicine by acquiring 5 million newly issued shares at USD 50 per share.