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.
You are correct that they are selling shares to fund their operations at this point in the game. Hence a major reason they went public. The $15 million was in venture capital funding that they raised when they were just a private entity. That is what they have essentially been using to get by for that past 5 years.
They will need cash to get through their phase I trials and to manufacture their drug Prolanta, and as we all know none of that is free. They were in the midst of phase I trials a little over year ago and were only able to produce enough of the drug to bring 3 of their 18 patients they were testing on to completion. Instead of trying to go the route of raising more private capital through another series and round of equity funding, they went public in order to access financing at a much quicker rate. The venture capitalists who have invested here are the majority owners of Oncolix and have over 70% of the voting power with a combination of Common Stock and Series A preferred Stock.
Prolanta has already shown signs of anti tumor activity by all of their patients they have tested on who have late stage ovarian cancer. Also, there have been no adverse effects and has been well tolerated by all patients. The only negative sides effects was some redness and minor itching at the injection sites.
So when you look at Oncolix and you see the S-1 registration and a company that is in debt, it can be scary to look at. But when you realize they are only a matter of months away from completing phase I trails that has already shown positive results, then its really not as scary as it looks. Positive results will be a major catalyst that will give enough momentum to chew through any sort of dilution and could possibly lead to a partnership with a major pharmaceutical company to aid in the Phase II and Phase III trials.
The majority of clinical stage biopharmaceutical startups out there are in even worse financial shape than Oncolix. 100's of those companies are currently on the Nasdaq. Oncolix' is pretty mild in comparison.
IMO
They've received $15m-$20m already in support for their drug development. I consider that to be pretty good.
I'm not scared of price drops. My only worry here is the science and efficacy of Prolanta. As long as things are good there, the rest will take care of itself.
If the PPS goes to those levels I will happily add more.
We just have to wait and see. Hoping we get phase I data before any shares from the S-1 can go into effect. I believe just based on the collective knowledge regarding Prolanta and what we've heard from phase I in regards to safety and efficacy, we should get some favorable results. Those results will be a major catalyst and will make any future dilution a non issue.
Yep completely agree. Part of the treatment process is to dose patients with the drug. In order to dose patients with the drug, you need to manufacture the drug. So therefore manufacturing the drug is one of the first steps in the treatment process. You can't have one without the other.
One guy was like "it looks like their trials have been going on since 2009". Really!? Thats your red flag!? If he dug into it, he would see that they were testing Prolanta on Xenografts in 2009 and those are considered trials. Human testing has only taken place within the past 2 years and that information is easily verifiable.
Yes part of the process of treating patients is manufacturing the drug to treat them with.
Here is the definition of process:
"a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end."
The actual testing of the drug would be but one step in the process.
There was no promise. It clearly states on the trial website that it is an 'estimated' time. An estimate is not a given.
Lets go ONCX!!!
Welcome to the new ONCX board!!
The current valuation, based on the sector Oncolix is in, is low. The ticker change doesn't add more value, but it can bring more eyes here that hopefully will see that this is undervalued. Once the word spreads and more investors are aware of Oncolix and what it has to offer, I believe we will have more buying pressure and a steady increase in PPS. This will also be achieved through the news and PR's.
I keep using innovation pharmaceutical's as an example and the reason for that is that Oncolix is nearly identical to them fundamentally. Positive phase I for their ovarian cancer drug took them up to a PPS of $4.93 . Since that peak it has been maintaining a steady market cap between $100m-$200m. And they aren't listed on the Nasdaq, they are an OTCQB just like Oncolix is about to become.
I feel very confident that we will be able to achieve positive phase I results like innovation has and have a similar run. The one advantage we do have is a much smaller float and a lot more institutional ownership. We might even surpass their best run.
IMO
This was our biggest volume with a green close since about the 3rd week of August. Let's hope this is just the beginning of a major run. The chart is primed.
That's weird because big buyers own like 80% of the shares here...
What's with the T-Trade for 16,608 shares at .0778 pps? That's a first for this ticker.
It could be new buyers who knew nothing about the company until today, but saw it pop up on the FINRA symbol change list or the PR that was put out right after. There are investors who check those things daily.
Go ONCOLIX!!!
My guess is that they will be announcing the continuation of Phase I trials. I also believe that they may be adding some game changing drugs to their pipeline. They are extremely well connected through partnership with GHS who is the majority owner in Oncolix as well as having Mario Glaxo as an investor. So you never know what sort of tricks they may have up their sleeve.
I feel that Oncolix is on its way to becoming a bonafide biotech company with a bolstered pipeline. I'm hoping that they announce a partnership with a larger pharmaceutical company soon to help with the development and costs of Prolanta. Another catalyst no one has talked about recently is their plans for FDA Fast Track for Prolanta. Hoping they apply for that in 2018 as well.
There is a ton of potential here.
*PROMISING PROLANTA SCIENCE*
Wen Chen (Prolanta Inventor)
He also invented Somavert which is known as G120R. Somavert was successfully brought through trials obtaining FDA approval and is now sold on the market by Pfizer. Somavert (G120R) is a growth hormone receptor antagonist. This drug was able to successfully inhibit growth hormone receptors to help patients who have growth hormone disorders.
Prolanta also known as G129R is Wen Chens other invention. He developed both G120R and G129R around the same time period using the exact same amino acid substitution method. These drugs are almost identical to each other. The other interesting fact is that the structure of prolactin is similar to that of growth hormone and placental lactogen.
So here you have 2 identical drugs that are antagonists for 2 hormones that are very structurally similar to each other. Inhibiting human prolactin may be effective in antitumor activity because of its role in the presence and growth of cancerous tumors. The other issue with human prolactin hormones is that they also contribute to humans becoming resistant to chemotherapy. If you can antagonize the human prolactin receptors and hormone, you can at the very least increase the efficacy of chemotherapy, which in itself would be a major breakthrough.
So in conclusion, knowing that we have 2 almost identical drugs working to antagonize structurally similar hormones, we can hypothesize that both would be almost equally effective. One drug, Somavert, has already achieved FDA approval, and the other drug, Prolanta, has a strong probability to follow suit.
IMO
Here's an article that contains information regarding the similarities of the prolactin hormone and growth hormone:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4757-3600-7_7
They are both pituitary hormones with structural similarities. Somavert was able to become a successful antagonist to HGH and Prolanta is a nearly identical drug and will more than likely be a successful antagonist to PRL.
Successful antagonism of PRL doesn't guarantee antitumor activity as a monotherapy, but knowing PRL's role in cancer patients resistance to chemo, it's almost guaranteed to improve the efficacy of the chemo, which would be a major breakthrough.
What we do know, based on what Redman has said and also what Lisa Johnson told me over the phone when I called GHS/ITOR, is that Prolanta, as a monotherapy, is showing efficacy.
Redman only has 5.4% of the voting power. So anything he does needs to be ok'd by GHS and Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust.
Another step in the right direction!! Next step is to uplist to the QB!!
Nice news!!!
Why would they arrest the animals from GHS? What did those poor Xenograft mice do to deserve getting arrested?
Let's say anything you say has any validity, what would it mean for Oncolix? Absolutely nothing. The company is legit. They have legit science on a promising drug and a majority institutional ownership.
So if Redman and Lisa Johnson had criminal charges brought against them for some reason, it wouldn't change the direction of the company. They would appoint a new CEO and things would continue on.
Whoopty doo
For anyone who is scared of Redman running a possible scam here, go ahead and take a look at the S-1/A and go down to the table of 'Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership'.
Health Sciences Center (Formerly GHS) has 47% control and voting power
Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust has 30.1% of control and voting power.
Michael Redman has 5.4% control and voting power
Donald Payne has 1.1% control and voting power
It's looks to me that Health Sciences Center and Texas Treasury Safekeeping Trust with a combined 77.1% of the voting power are really the ones in control here and will ultimately decide the decisions that Oncolix will make going into the future.
Some food for thought.
Here's an article that contains information regarding the similarities of the prolactin hormone and growth hormone:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4757-3600-7_7
They are both pituitary hormones with structural similarities. Somavert was able to become a successful antagonist to HGH and Prolanta is a nearly identical drug and will more than likely be a successful antagonist to PRL.
Successful antagonism of PRL doesn't guarantee antitumor activity as a monotherapy, but knowing PRL's role in cancer patients resistance to chemo, it's almost guaranteed to improve the efficacy of the chemo, which would be a major breakthrough.
What we do know, based on what Redman has said and also what Lisa Johnson told me over the phone when I called GHS/ITOR, is that Prolanta, as a monotherapy, is showing efficacy.
Makes sense since they are almost identical.
Prolanta science and why I think it's going to be a success
Wen Chen (Prolanta Inventor)
He also invented Somavert which is known as G120R. Somavert was successfully brought through trials obtaining FDA approval and is now sold on the market by Pfizer. Somavert (G120R) is a growth hormone receptor antagonist. This drug was able to successfully inhibit growth hormone receptors to help patients who have growth hormone disorders.
Prolanta also known as G129R is Wen Chens other invention. He developed both G120R and G129R around the same time period using the exact same amino acid substitution method. These drugs are almost identical to each other. The other interesting fact is that the structure of prolactin is similar to that of growth hormone and placental lactogen.
So here you have 2 identical drugs that are antagonists for 2 hormones that are very structurally similar to each other. Inhibiting human prolactin may be effective in antitumor activity because of its role in the presence and growth of cancerous tumors. The other issue with human prolactin hormones is that they also contribute to humans becoming resistant to chemotherapy. If you can antagonize the human prolactin receptors and hormone, you can at the very least increase the efficacy of chemotherapy, which in itself would be a major breakthrough.
So in conclusion, knowing that we have 2 almost identical drugs working to antagonize structurally similar hormones, we can hypothesize that both would be almost equally effective. One drug, Somavert, has already achieved FDA approval, and the other drug, Prolanta, has a strong probability to follow suit.
IMO
You lost me at 'mails'.
When is the last time you heard Redman speak?
Substantive news would be great, but I also think if we get more eyes on this, investors will uncover the value upon their DD. It won't take a whole lot of buying pressure, with such a low float, to get it moving.
Okay I got you. Now we are on the same page. 'Lock up' is just a term I threw out there and wasn't referring to a lock up agreement. I guess I should've chose different wording.
Thank you for the clarification.
Yes they expire in less than 12 months because of the time passed from the merger closing. There's about 8-9 months left in that Rule 144 restriction.
The form S-1/A clearly states that there are 63m shares of Series A Preferred Stock that are eligible to be resold pursuant to Rule 144 commencing in August 2018. Am I interpreting that wrong? Those preferred shares are locked up for at least 12 months.
Redman, Payne, and GHS have a separate lock up agreement where they cannot sell any shares for a period of 15 months from August 3, 2017.
When you take into account the Series A Preferred shares that are locked up pursuant to Rule 144 for at least 12 months and the other lock up agreement mentioned above for 15 months, that's pretty much every single insider share being restricted for at least 12 months.
Why do we have a discrepancy?
Please show me where you are getting your info so that we can get on the same page.
According to the form S-1/A it looks as if the Series A Preferred Stock is restricted until at least August 2018. All of the preferred shares are held by insiders. The insiders have a combo of common stock and Series A Preferred Stock judging by the Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership table. Here is a piece from the S-1/A as well:
"A significant portion of our total outstanding shares are restricted from immediate resale but may be sold into the market in the near future, which could cause the market price of our Common Stock to drop significantly, even if our business is doing well.
Sales of a substantial number of shares of our Common Stock in the public market could occur at any time, either from holders of shares that are in the public float or as a result of registering the issuance of shares to be issued upon conversion of the Convertible Notes and exercise of the Warrants. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our Common Stock. As of this date, there are approximately 103,878,536 shares of Common Stock outstanding. Of such number, approximately 31,765,903 shares may be sold in the public market immediately without restriction and the balance are currently restricted as a result of securities laws or lock-up agreements until at least August 2018. Additionally, there are 63,038,284 shares of Series A Preferred Stock that are currently convertible into 63,038,284 shares of Common Stock eligible to be resold pursuant to Rule 144 commencing in August 2018. In addition, upon the exercise of warrants to acquire Series A Preferred Stock or the exercise of other warrants and options to acquire Common Stock, 61,864,664 shares of Common Stock could be issued and become eligible to be resold pursuant to Rule 144 commencing in August 2018."
So not all of the insiders shares are locked up, but the majority of them are.
There's a good chance that the ticker change could happen this week based upon the email exchange I had with Redman last week. It's really all on FINRA at this point, we're getting close.
I do that with every stock I'm involved with and I don't see any signs of a scam. They are doing everything by the book. If they were scamming us, they literally are getting nothing out of it because none of the insiders can sell their shares for atleast 12 months. Their shares are restricted.
Not fair to compare Oncolix to other companies when 99% of the other companies aren't a newly formed public company via reverse merger. To me, when I see all these amendments, it tells me they are making sure everything is perfect. I believe that Redman is being thorough and meticulous. It's better to make sure there aren't any discrepancies now, because I have seen too many companies have major delays with audited financials because they were careless and sloppy with their filings.
There's a lot of work that goes into reverse merging a private company and all of it's assets and financials into a shell while making sure everything is accurate. A private company isn't held to the same accounting standards as a public company.
Fixing everything now will make it easier down the road if they ever uplist to a higher exchange.
You're not aware of it because most pink sheet scams don't file anything. Most of them have stop signs and caveat emptor. They relentlessly dilute without any financials being filed showing the notes and the extent of the dilution. Investors have no indication of anything and are fed misleading pump PR's making outrageous claims so that unsuspecting traders will eat up the notes.
Oncolix is transparent.