I agree with the vast majority of this, fred, as I think that the MDR market for PRO 140 is likely limited. I think the one variable or oversight may be that, depending on how the FDA chooses to label PRO 140 for combo use, there may be a larger market population than you're currently considering. In particular, for patients who show early stage resistance to a single drug class, but are still C5 only. It's clear to me that the ideal situation would be to prevent progression to C4/5 tropism and MDR by suppressing viral load earlier in the process. That said, I may have a fundamental misunderstanding of the typical progression of the disease, and this is clearly hypothetical and based on FDA choices regarding labeling. Perhaps it's unlikely, based on the FDA's insistence on MDR candidates for the P2/3 combo trial. Simply seems to me to be a very logical best and highest use for PRO 140 in a combo application.

All of this obviously assumes strong clinical data and approval, which are of course not guaranteed although I expect nothing else.

Nice press for ENDV this morning:

http://www.nbc12.com/story/35939672/congress-could-have-major-impact-on-biotech-companies

Doesn't say much about potential impact from Congressional actions, but always nice to have the name out there. With lead billing, no less.

No problem. More complete information is a good thing for everyone.

Fair point on the uplist and R/S timing. I admittedly don't have a lot of experience there, so I'm just working off of my own logic, etc.

As far as the valuation being high unless mono is approved, let's not forget that unlike combo, the entire mono trial is open label. In other words, the company will have access to real time efficacy and safety data in that trial, and potential buyers would as well given they sign a nondisclosure agreement. This would provide an opportunity for the trial to de-risk PRO 140 partially prior to approval, as strong data would portend a high likelihood of approval. I imagine that there are multiple buyers who would be interested in this drug if it's demonstrating efficacy, and they'll each have to weigh the risk of paying asking price for a product that isn't yet completely de-risked (via approval) versus waiting too long and having someone else take that risk. If real time results are good, I believe that sets up a game of chicken between potential buyers that results in a nice return for us investors. If nobody bites and we ride this thing through mono approval, we'll all be making a lot more than $5/share in my estimation.

It's also worth mentioning that it could be a strong candidate for the Accelerated Approval program if interim mono results are strong based on the lack of toxicity versus current SOC, as well as (I'm assuming here) demonstrated efficacy in rather dire salvage cases such as those in the combo trial. Those would be separate approval processes of course (combo and mono), but the FDA would almost certainly consider something like a completed P2/3 combo trial in weighing AA for mono. misiu has mentioned this before, but I think it just kind of washed over the collective consciousness of the board. This could provide additional incentive for a buyer to pay for a significant portion of the value of mono prior to approval, as there may be an uncertain timeline for when nearly full de-risking would occur. I say "nearly" because whoever owns it at the time of a hypothetical AA would still need to continue the trials post-marketing... they would just be getting paid in the meantime.

All of that said, I still wish those financial obligations weren't out there, but they're not causing me to lose a second of sleep. If the data is good, we'll all be good.

Hey Amateur,

Your numbers look about right, but I think you're overstating the potential impact of some of the payments to overall value against what we've been discussing on the board. Would shares be worth more without these financial obligations out there? Of course. But these obligations have been here for years, and I think they're more likely to have shock value to investors who haven't done due diligence properly than they are to a potential acquirer. If, in theory, CYDY were to attract a BP buyer, $25mm in expected trial costs over two years plus $6mm+ in milestone payments and FDA fees is not a particularly significant cash burden. Last I checked, for example, Gilead had something like $32B in cash on the balance sheet. As for the royalty payments due upon commercialization, you're exactly right, but that's not exactly new information either. The company has certainly known about that and included it in any internal valuation exercises, including the conversations Saltz alleges to have been privy to (or at least heard the results of) where the principals have a consensus $5/share price floor.

None of this, of course, changes the fact that funding is a pressing need at the moment. I agree that they've been taking drips and drops of funding to get them to a point where they can get better, less dilutive funding terms post-combo results. Regardless, any funding at this stage other than grants is going to be dilutive - that's simply the nature of a pre-revenue biotech. Even a partnership would dilute the future revenue stream, which has a similar if less pronounced end result for current shareholders as issuing some number of new shares at a given price.

As for the timing of the reverse split, my assumption is that they'll see what sort of bump the SP gets from combo results, then apply the appropriate ratio R/S if deemed necessary to get to the needed price for uplisting. I'm not positive that this matters significantly other than it would mean they have information on the R/S ratio actually needed instead of taking a guess, or going overkill with an 8-10:1 R/S ahead of news. I could be wrong on that, as it is completely my opinion.

Thanks Reaper (and Bored Lawyer), this is exactly the information I myself wanted to get clear perspective on and wanted to bring to the board. The tone of some of the comments made me think that folks might have been expecting the macro changes to occur at the drop of a hat this month, and it's never fun when expectations don't align to the reality of legal process. Should be a fun few weeks either way, and I'm looking forward to it.

Hope so! Just trying to preclude predictable emotional reactions from people who may have been or may still be expecting something other than exactly what was promised in the 8k - which was finalizing the terms and conditions of the offer. I'd personally love to see it all filed, approved by the agencies, and the ticker changed before 8/1. That would be great. In reality, the agencies (particularly FINRA) can be slow at times, so maybe the formality of a ticker change is next month regardless of when Oncolix gets everything filed, and that's out of AEPP/Oncolix's hands. It's also not what they promised in the 8k for July, so it's not like they didn't deliver if the ticker is still AEPP, for instance. Again, I just want folks to understand the process and what to expect, because irrational emotional investing responses based on misunderstanding aren't pretty.

But I guess they do get me some cheap shares from time to time.

Not to quibble over whether that particular sale was dilution or not, but I wouldn't assume that just because it was an odd price that it must've been institutional. I (and others I know) routinely use such bids, as it sometimes helps gets orders filled that otherwise don't clear. Just a thought.

I'd be careful about assuming anyone else's intelligence level after you repeatedly referenced a 1901 Supreme Court case to try to defame the CEO here. I'm not a part of your agenda. I'm trying to actually inform people...

I'm not sure that's 100% accurate. I believe that the registrations that they have to file (at least with the SEC and FINRA) are public documents that we would see, and would come after the terms and conditions of the merger were finalized. BottomWatcher seemed to confirm that to some degree, maybe he can chime back in with more info.

Again, not trying to stir up sentiment one way or the other, just want to make sure folks are expecting the correct things so that they're not going to go nuts if the ticker isn't ONCX or something like that before 8/1.

In other words, what we're expecting is to have the finalized agreement between the two parties. Legal filings with the SOS, SEC, and FINRA would follow next month to officially recognize the RM. Ok, I'm fine with that. Just want to make sure that we're all expecting the same thing. Thanks BW.

What EXACTLY is coming, in your opinion? The first filing with the SOS? There is a series of steps that has to occur (publicly, I believe, though I'm willing to be wrong here) before the RM can be closed or finalized. If I'm misunderstanding the process, I'd love for a person knowledgeable on the subject to correct me.

That unfortunately precludes the person most likely to respond: Airstock.

Are we positive that we expect the closure of the RM this month? The way I read it (and I'm no lawyer or M&A analyst...), it says that they "intend to finalize the terms and conditions of the offer in July 2017". In that case, it seems it would still have to go to a vote of Oncolix shareholders, then file with the Secretary of State, then file with the SEC, then file with FINRA. There may be paperwork downtime in between any or all of those steps.

Not trying to kill enthusiasm here, as I'd love to see the RM closed as soon as possible. I also believe fully that it will occur, as otherwise it would make no sense whatsoever for a pre-revenue biotech trying to fund clinical trials to spend $365k on a shell company. I want to make sure that expectations are set correctly, so that nobody is disappointed if all we get this month is a statement of terms and conditions. Maybe I'm overlooking another statement that has been made by management, I don't know.

Thoughts here?

There is a limit, yes. I'm admittedly not 100% on my details on who can convert when and how much per day, so I'll leave it to others to answer in detail. I'm sure it can also be found in relevant SEC filings.

It seems to me that a few of the mods here may want to consider giving up their role for this board. I'm not sure, but I doubt the intent is to have moderators who routinely call management of the company at best incompetent, and at worst criminal. Just a suggestion, but it seems inappropriate to me.

I think you're right on both counts - financing is the key need at this point, and PRO 140 should allow them to meet the challenges ahead. I'm working on the assumption that positive combo data along with strong enrollment in mono should derisk enough to allow for better financing terms. Hopefully I'm right; time will tell.

Interesting take on the CEO's debt stake. That very well may have been a contingency aspect of his decision to invest in the company through the convertibles. However, it's worth remembering that, in addition to the ~1.3 million shares he could convert through the promissory note, he also owns ~1.4 million shares (or equivalent) based on the table of beneficial ownership and footnotes on page 22 of the recent preliminary proxy statement. I have to think that that provides significant motivation to strive for the best possible result. Plus, the bankruptcy process would delay progress quite a bit and cloud the prospects sufficiently that I think a reasonable person would strongly prefer to continue positive momentum rather than risk a backdoor play like taking over through bankruptcy. Completely my opinion there, but bankruptcy can obviously get messy and time consuming, which would not be an ideal result for anyone owning this company or its assets. In the end, good and interesting question that I admittedly hadn't explicitly considered, but I don't think that it'll keep me up tonight. Thoughts?

Hi all, new to the board. Been doing some DD here and the pipeline looks great, but the financials look like a nightmare. I have an email out to IR, but I haven't heard back from them yet. Does anyone have any information on how they intend to fund the clinical trial they hope to start soon?

Edit: didn't mean to respond to you, Revorising. Just a question for the board...

I understand what you're saying, and appreciate the response. No need for further response, so please don't take this post as a request for one.

I still stand by my assertion that the patterns, et al, that you were using are a proxy for aggregate behavior of investors - after all, stock prices don't move on their own - and the characteristics of this stock that I laid out make predicting behavior based on a small sample size problematic. That said, maybe I'm looking at it wrong and we're essentially saying the same thing. Regardless, the fact is that your charts were essentially correct for the past few weeks.

Charting aside, the pump and dump assertion seems fair here. I believe that there's some price manipulation going on from multiple parties. However, the term scam is being tossed around pretty heavily (not necessarily by you) with little or no backing evidence being given. That part doesn't make sense, unless Collier and Mann are literally stupid and think that they can make up lies out of whole cloth, run a fraud public company, and get away with it in the long run. That's a bridge too far for me, and I'd really love to see some in depth explanations here from those who are asserting fraud. The more logical explanation is that they're attempting to run the company in the best manner as they currently see it, and that may not align with the short-term desires of shareholders. Such as myself.

Again, no response necessary, and no need to further explain your charting. I appreciate you responding in the first place. If/when this gets uplisted (one can dream, correct?) I'll be the first to follow your TA.

That may be true, but revenue is clearly a long way off which makes better funding terms the pressing need. That's like saying a car with no wheels REALLY needs a new solenoid to make it run well. It could be 100% true, but you have some other major mechanical issues that may prove to be roadblocks.

Revenue streams are great, but they aren't the only way to derisk an investment and make it more attractive. That said, you may be right regarding the timing aspect for entry points, depending on your risk tolerance and investment perspective.

Of course we do, but revenues are a long ways off and everyone knows that. What we need now is solid funding to continue development. Solid funding opportunities (including diluting at a better PPS, potentially) comes from the publication of positive data from pre-clinical trials. Until then, the price will continue down. Of course, we could potentially take on less attractive funding opportunities and give up way more of the company than anyone would like to, but nobody wants that either. Which is, no doubt, why they're funding through dilution. They think they're close enough to a positive inflection point to dribble in the funding until they can secure better financing.

So what we need now is positive results from pre-clinical trials. Any one of them. They're all huge markets and unmet medical needs.

Despite the technology being developed originally by NASA, there's no rocket science here.

NOW we're talking! If a PR comes on 7/31, remind me to get your address so that I can send you a gift basket.

I don't necessarily think you or or your analysis have been wrong, so to speak. Obviously, it's followed the trend that you have suggested for the past few weeks. My disconnect, which I think some others may share, is that I don't believe that technical analysis is particularly meaningful for all stocks, particularly thinly-traded, OTC, pre-revenue stocks. Being OTC precludes most large institutional investors, which covers most of the real money trading on technical algorithms. You're left with a handful of investors on any given ticker on the OTC who would actually have the sophistication to trade technicals, which can tend to be self-reinforcing. Also, being thinly traded means (to me) that relatively small trades could create outsized appearances of movement or trend. An analogy would be trying to build a statistical model with a very, very limited data set; you're unlikely to come up with anything meaningful, but that doesn't mean that the modeling construct or statistical analysis itself isn't useful. Again, not discounting TA as a whole - in fact I'd be very much interested in your opinion on other tickers - I'm just not sure it's the most useful tool in the box here.

I'm a big fan of Occam's Razor in most cases. Here, the simplest explanation - a pre-revenue biotech that is currently relying on dilution to fund itself and has missed milestones on major catalysts will likely continue to fall in price until one of those two conditions changes. Simple supply and demand. No more dilution? Take 7mm shares a week off of the ask and the price would at least stabilize. Major catalysts? Theoretically would significantly impact both supply and demand, moving the price one way or the other. The moon would be nice, but most here would take a good reversal. The fact that your TA and the simplest explanation predict the same outcome implies no correlation or causation in my mind, but that's kind of neither here nor there.

On another note, I truly am unsure what some here expect of management at this point. I would have preferred an earlier communication that they wouldn't have results in 2Q, sure. More clarity on funding strategy would be great, agreed. But neither of these are really game changing for me, and none of it leads me to believe, as others have claimed, that the principals are committing outright fraud while leaving a clear paper trail of black and white falsehoods that would send them quickly to federal prison once the fraud is inevitably exposed. That just doesn't make sense, and sounds more like venting of frustration with an investment taking longer than expected rather than a logical deduction.

When the data comes, it will be what it will be. Management has clearly chosen a path of continued dilution to fund trials, and I'm left to believe (for lack of alternatives) that this is a conscious and rational choice on their part, not an element of a criminal enterprise. This is just a part of the deal when investing in very early stage, pre-revenue companies.

Finally some positive news on this stock!

Hope it all goes well.

Could you call your surgeon and see if they can move the date up? I'm not impatient, just kind of bored...

Sorry to hear about the upcoming procedure, minor or otherwise.

You have your opinion, I have mine. No hard feelings. I've spent far too much time and effort on other boards disproving patently false posts by others, so if there's not a better way (e.g. outright banning members who post blatant falsehoods) then I'm all for innovative ways of getting the point across. And again, anyone who doesn't take the time to research easily verifiable claims from anonymous posters on an internet message board deserves whatever outcome they get, so I just can't lose sleep over the sanctity of a sticky note.

All good either way, carry on...

Agreed. Why would we want them to spend a dime on unnecessary overhead? This wouldn't make the top ten on any list of my concerns here.

Agreed - and such details were not and have not been forthcoming from our friend here...

You're not going to get anything - or anything truthful, anyway. If his intentions were every anything other than manipulating the stock by spreading false information, don't you think he would've posted when he learned something new? Wouldn't any of you?

I'll bet damn good money he never spoke to anyone at the company, and never learned anything "new" subsequently. Just wanted someone to hit his ask so he could get out for whatever reason. There's no magic to reading people's intent - just connect the dots for yourself.

Hope so. Although it wouldn't hurt my feelings too badly if it took a few more weeks to go green so I could potentially scrape up a little more liquidity first...

If you could PR multiple instances of promising preclinicals in large, disparate markets in a short period of time... well, we'll all be really happy if that happens. Like, exceptionally happy. That would be far superior to announcing one strong preclinical, then starting another and letting the SP drag down again from (necessary) dilution (albeit at a higher SP) while we wait for more news. The bigger the bump, the better the funding prospects going forward, the less dilution impacts us. Or, the better the BO offer, if you're getting optimistic.

I prefer to believe that's the strategy instead of "let's try all of these while we have funding and see if one sticks." I'm hopeful that my faith is not misplaced, but I'm far from certain.

Pearsby, you're not even posting to the right board. Get it together...

Makes sense, thanks!

Thanks for chiming in there, misiu. I was wondering about the compliance/enforcement aspect of only prescribing and using it on-label, but had no experience with how that might work in practice.

I bet you and pearsby are a riot at parties.

Small world! Let me know if you decide you'll be around, hopefully we'll each be able to afford an extra beer or two by then. I can't reply to PM's, so if you find you're heading this way just shoot me a PM with some contact info.

Makes sense - I get the need to uplist, and can see how a R/S would factor into that game plan. I think R/S sometimes get a bad rap and folks can tend to ignore the useful purpose they may serve... but it doesn't matter why folks don't like them if they start selling out of their positions. Hopefully it won't be necessary - love to see the SP get there organically.

Good to see you here, you've been quiet lately.

Appreciate the reply, PNW. That's something I probably should have known anyway... but I haven't been around that long. That's my excuse.

By the way, do you compete in IM events? I'm signed up for Boulder 2018...

Just talked with Bored Lawyer, who read the filing briefly. Looks like in addition to housekeeping issues, they're also bringing up authorizing the board to execute a reverse stock split (between 2:1 and 10:1) or, if the RSS is not authorized, to increase the allowed outstanding shares.

Thoughts on this? Thinking the short term reaction may be negative, but also thinking that they may just be covering their bases to ensure that they're in a position to capitalize on news and try to uplist.

While true in theory, I highly doubt that we see a clear stop in the buying before a PR.

- The 4's have been continuously filed about three business days after the purchase. Sometimes they've been a day or two behind that.
- They'll probably PR trial results within about that same time frame; 2-3 business days after they get the data.

I'm not counting on cessation of Form 4 filings to act as a signal for an upcoming PR. That said, I do appreciate the daily updates to the board regarding Mr. Mann's purchases.

Agreed. And I readily admit to being naive to the mechanical intricacies of the OTC market and the MM's activities, so I make no comment on what that could possibly mean. Just caught my eye as a large block on the bid. Hoping maybe someone could interpret a bit or provide context - maybe even give me good news! I like good news.