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.
giving Garnick credit for 17 approvals is like giving the bat boy credit for a team winning a world series.
time is money in the world of pharma. you can't take forever to get a drug approved. If, and it is certainly a big if, Bavi was ever ahead of the curve it is way behind now and all PPHM does is pump up preclinical studies in immunotherapy, and just a few years ago Bavi was an anti-angiogenic when that was hot.
King and CO. are just riding out the ride to eventual bankruptcy and making sure they get their retirements along the way.
as everyone is suffering huge losses don't worry, SK is still making tons of money! more ATM at lower prices to come with dilution driving the shareprice down. 10.5% interest loan on the PPHMP? with interest rates the way they are today. That just shows that people with money who do their DD don't think PPHM is worth even a loan. and if a bank won't lend them money, why should a BP give them any money especially with the amateurs running PPHM.
but by all means feel free to double down again SK won't let you get burned next time.
When you connect the dots you usually don't get a masterpiece. Maybe a rough outline of Pinocchio. PPHM is a house of cards. I am sorry for all of you who put their faith in people who could not care less about your investments.
I thought they wanted to go without a partner isn't that what Garnick said. Why pay for these worldwide budget busting trips? All paid for by your friendly ATM
typical obfuscation by PPHM.
is he or isn't he an employee? shouldn't shareholders actually know what his relationship is? Would you do the same things as a consultant or as an employee. Seems to me Garnick wants to keep a layer of deniability from PPHM and I don't blame him one bit. PPHM gets to call him head and Garnick can walk away from the whole mess without any blame falling on him as just a consultant.
If as a shareholder you have to guess what the relationship Garnick has to the company is, how can you possibly think PPHM is transparent about what happened in the Phase II debacle?
PPHM is not trying to cure cancer even they will admit to that.
PPHM should be ashamed trying to pass off Bavi as a real drug- two generations out of date, 3 different MOAs, the whole thing is cynical.
You are not leading the fight against cancer by investing in Bavi and PPHM you are just enabling SK.
so after years of saying they want a partner, after trying to get a partner, PPHM says they don't need one. Well if they don't they can drastically reduce the number of events they do where they try to meet people to partner with. If they want to bravely go it alone they need to stop acting like they don't want to go it alone.
On another note, CSM was trying to show PPHM the right way to do a double blind study. placebo, 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg should not be labelled A B C. If A was actually B and B actually A through out the entire study then the 1 mg/kg had an MOS of 5.8 months. The reason PPHM is doing the "conservative thing" is to hide this fact. It's worse than I imagined the placebo did as well as 3 mg/kg.
But expect another round of ATM, another CC with SK saying how excited everyone is and the flurry of activity and promising, really promising results showing a trend and lots of partnership talk, even though they don't want to partner, or maybe they do, meanwhile I'm going to collect my fat paycheck.
I like that PPHM says CSM represented themselves as experienced and capable but were not. Sounds a lot like PPHM management. Pot calling the kettle black.
PPHM says CSM switched unilaterally however they offer no proof of this. Just accusations.
If what PPHM says happened it doesn't make any sense to combine the placebo and 1 mg/kg arms as they were just switched ( allegedly).
If this ain't a mess it will do until the real mess gets here. Still think PPHM didn't understand how CSM wanted to handle things and screwed things up.
The fact that PPHM never bothered to verify what happened for months after unblinding shows the true unprofessionalism and incompetence of King and Co.
if you could gain value in market cap for dragging your feet PPHM would be up there with AAPL.
How much time do you need to give King before you see results? He has delivered nothing except a lot of money into his personal bank account.
by this logic nothing would ever get done. someone always leaves something on the table. In this case however no one has or will ever make an offer to PPHM Bavi has not shown itself to do much of anything. Oh yeah, what about the phase II you say. a fake control that is not really a control cause you can't make a control after the fact. Consider it to be a single arm then Bavi clocks in at 11.7 months MOS. not impressive.
I find it unfathomable that the original results could say control 5.8 months, 3 mg/kg Bavi 13.1. Neither number is the same anymore. What kind of study is that and why did the 3 mg/kg arm change its MOS anyhow.
There may be more mistakes that we don't know about.
It has been over a year and still no resolution with CSM. That says to me loudly and clearly that PPHM screwed up somehow and that should come as no surprise to anyone.
Bavi is safe and well tolerated. That's as good as you're going to get
is PGN635 the same thing as Bavi?
this is the same bad data we have seen before
look at the control, it's all over the place
635 does nothing- but probably they have used this model before to show 635 doing something.
anti PD-1 and anti CTLA4 do appear to work.
adding 635 results in at most 1 or 2 more responders but that is within the error of the model IMO.
One thing I've learned from following PPHM- when they include a reference to well tolerated and safe it means Bavi didn't work. I'm talking about the liver data now. Don't get your hopes up.
At best-- it will show a "trend" in agreement with improvement, potentially increased efficacy- but nothing that would really move the share price.
Bexxar is discontinued due to low sales <100 patients/ year
What you describe is what Cotara is.
You remember Cotara that Phase III ready drug that needs a partner.
course 80 million in the bank for PPHM could actually fund a Cotara trial so why not?
Cotara looks like a slam dunk compared to Bavi.
No questions about that at the CC- Nothing about PGN650 either.
Only talk of partnerships which upon close inspection meant partnerships for Phase I ISTS.
I don't make a dime or a quarter off of my posts. I just don't want PPHM sucking money for cancer research that should go to people who are actually trying to fight cancer not line their own pockets.
GLTA get out while you can
you have respect for King as a scientist. please explain. To my knowledge he has ZERO first authorships and publishes nothing on a regular basis.
You probably shouldn't play poker with him, cause he doesn't have the nuts he has a bluff and you're falling for it.
and all the things that were going to happen at this CC
European partnership
Cotara partnership
update on Phase III with actual numbers
strong Avid numbers
never happened.
what happened- softball questions from analysts tied at the hip to PPHM. No more questions so we'll end it. When do the shareholders get to ask a question?
But Bavi is still an out of date chimeric antibody with a string of failed clinical studies
Mgmt is still unqualified and over paid
GLTA!
taking your profits would be advisable.
I am stunned that recycled data would cause such a rush. when reality sets in people will wonder- why did I buy this?
Ponzi scheme. You do know under bankcruptcy preferred collects last if at all
BPs like pathways. Bavi binds a strutural element. Maybe a marker but not sexy to a BP
calling my argument ridiculous is not actually an argument.
you assume that if you ask Friemark those questions you would get a satisfying answer. I don't. And those questions will essentially never be answered.
But if you are content with abstracts and posters and one journal article a year go for it. But that is not a substantial enough amount of work to advance a program.
One thing that caught my eye was 1N11. That is what should be combined with Yervoy if they are going to combine anything. Bavi is quite simply old fashioned and should be replaced with a fully human molecule.
The answer to the corruption is found on the last slide of the presentation in the acknowledgements. Everything you need to know is right there at the bottom.
a nice example of corruption is Bruce Freimark's slides posted by FTM.
there is almost a complete absence of hard data that shows how they have come to their conclusions.
most importantly they are still showing the very weak data on the combo of anti-CTLA4 and Bavi. They have had enough time to repeat this experiment many times over and get real data. Instead they trot out the same tired data that happens to show that there might be an effect from Bavi. Definitely cherry picking and corrupt.
as pointed out by others they had postulated how effective Bavi would be in combo with other therapies and basically implied they would be showing results specifically with the anti-PD1 instead there was nothing.
I imagine they did try with the antiPD-1 and have some data. Probably the anti-PF1 was 100% effective in the mouse model so Bavi made no difference, in fact due to the inconsistencies with the tumor model the Bavi combo could well have been less effective.
Where is the data?
Why are the endlessly repeating data that is at least one year old?
Where are the followups?
Well they probably followed up the shoddy antiCTLa4 work but the data stunk so they didn't show it.
IMO they should have never showed it in the first place but did cause they thought they could use it for good publicity not because it was good science.
That is exactly what I mean by corrupt.
Keep taking your profits and don't get greedy Mazel.
Don't think I could ever compare Bavi or PPHM to Manning- Peyton was great and then had the neck thing and is great again. PPHM was never great and likes giving it in the back of the neck to the shareholders. I'm just trying to warn people to not put your faith in the corruption that sits at the top of PPHM.
the reason bavi "works" with anti CTLA4 is because anti CTLA4 works. Bavi needs to work on its own otherwise it is not much of anything. PD-1 has had some issues so hitching your wagon to it may not be such a great idea. But copycats don't usually have great ideas anyway.
Somebody look at Garnick's website and see what his affiliation with PPHM is.
you make excellent points PVL.
Part of the problem is that PPHM has been able to be in Phase 1 and 2 for so long they think that smoke and mirrors is a substitute for great clinical data. Phase 3 means higher visibility and scrutiny from knowledgable analysts ( usually not the ones that cover PPHM and sit in lobbing up softballs at the CCs).
BP's don't buy PPHM's data, Wall St. doesn't buy it. What they would buy is real professionals in charge at PPHM including the BOD. In the absence of a partnership ( and my feeling is there is no reason to partner with PPHM as they have no expertise and if Bavi works a buyout would be in order) that is the only thing that will drive up the share price.
and as usual ATM lowers the share price. dilution is not the solution unless you want to have another reverse split.
as Bill Parcells says- you are what your record is and if there is no record on the WWW of any great things going on with Bavi.... why would you believe SK about anything- except that he is overpaid. wonder what really happened with Masten.
@CP
PPHM said they won't move forward with Cotara without a partner and yet they are moving Bavi forward without a partner. They are also spending money, ill-advised IMO for Phase i Bavi with Yervoy. So they are choosing to let Cotara sit in favor of Bavi but the fact remains they have let it sit. Hard to imagine that after getting Phase III status more than a year ago a year later some BP is ready to come in. So, I think shelved is more than fair
@Mazel
see reasons above for why I think it is fair to say shelved Cotara. You have done well stock wise lately. Hope you sold some and took a profit.
@Newbiee
in order to run a Phase III with Bavi and Yervoy you will need at least 600 patients. @ $120000 for Yervoy that is $72 million for Yervoy alone. PPHM does not have that kind of money. Even a Phase II is $24 million in Yervoy alone. What can you glean from 24 patients when Yervoy will probably work in most cases? not much
@ $120000 for Yervoy PPHM could not afford to do a trial with any meaning.
how come no one is upset that PPHM has basically shelved Cotara when it could actually be a useful therapeutic. if they really cared about cancer patients they would let it go since they're not going to do anything with it.
the bigger you are the softer you fall.
PPHM was paying Masten a boatload of money. Hard to imagine he could get anything near that somewhere else. Must have really been uncomfortable with the management.
I'm open to hearing any knowledge anyone on this board wishes to dispense to me to convince me of Bavi's usefulness.
Just doing some research on the PS receptor on Macrophages there was a paper that the PS receptor is able to remove apoptotic cells without generating a full blown immune response. Does this mean PS is immunosuppressive or just a signal to remove the dying cell.
Bavi's literature says the opposite.
I am interested in how the PS receptor is able to bind PS on the cell surface when beta 2 glycoprotein is present.
Bavi binds B2GP1 to some degree and I don't see that in the PPHM video. I am also suspicious of the multi action theory of Bavi. It reminds me of an infomercial- but wait there's more.
Also the recent rebranding of Bavi into an immunotherapy seems like trying to get into a hot field.
Before immunotherapy Bavi was supposed to work through ADCC
did you ever wonder why if PS is supposed to be this great immunosuppressive agent how exposing more PS is beneficial to treatment. Shouldn't bavi work better as a single therapy with less PS?
PS is exposed on cells that are already dying so targeting them IMO is maybe helpful as a marker but not as a therapy.
when all the folks who rushed in due to CNBC take a closer look at PPHM they will be out because
Constant dilution lowers share price
Third rate management team
Fast track without priority review is meaningless
Even if they had priority review the output is overall survival which cannot be known until the end of the trial
I'll be watching the ticker to see your prognostication skills. I don't worry about day to day only the quality of the product and Bavi is not ready for prime time.
Caveat emptor newbies.
You could have 100000 views, Bavi still is unproven.
Bavi doesn't have priority review. Wait till those people that bought based on CNBC realize that.
you're off by at least 4 orders of magnitude.
why is it that only PPHM has endless possibilities while BP that's have anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 therapeutics that are actually working in the clinic are not endless.
why is there always this incredible lack of modesty with PPHM, that adding another arrow in the quiver of cancer medicines is not enough. PPHM has to be on the order of the Holy Grail, which of course, is pure fantasy.
Cause Garnick's function is to tell SK what SK wants to hear and then do SK's bidding to the general public. The hired guns that comprise the new advisors are more familiar with their hourly rate than the wonders of Bavi. These guys are getting paid a small fortune by PPHM so retail investors believe the hype
There is no reason for a BP to buyout PPHM before the trial is over. There is no reason for BP to partner with PPHM as BP has the experts and PPHM has non-qualified people throughout their organization.
Hope you all enjoyed the spike, it will have to do until the next fluffy PR that doesn't show that Bavi is actually working in a human being.
Notice the other downstream checkpoint immunotherapies actually work without chemo while the only time the allegedly immunotherapeutic Bavi has shown anything ( and nothing statistically beyond- promising, trending, etc) is with chemo which has nothing to do with immunotherapy.
that is the whole point. BP are very careful what studies their billion dollar products go into. I do not think they would want PPHM using their products. They would have to seek out PPHM to partner. Based on one preclinical study that has a lot of issues no BP would be impressed and so far no BP has stepped forward.
Maybe Bavi is "safe" cause it has no effect.
Hard to imagine any BP financing a combo trial. Wouldnt PPHM have to get permission to even use any other therapeutic with Bavi cause if PPHM screws things up it could be bad for the combo drug.
SK is no Chip Kelly he's more like Gerry Faust except Faust actually was a successful high school coach while SK's biggest attribute was working for the right person (PT) at the right time.
why would an offer to PPHM have to be a low ball. BP does not typically low ball. If the data is there to support the price they pay. Look at Inhibitex where Jeff Hutchins is from. BMS dropped 2.5 billion dollars only to find out the Inhibitex drug was worthless. They just wrote the whole debacle down.
It is also patently nonsense that a small biotech would prefer to go the Phase III alone to have " control". This is total spin by Garnick and flies in the face of common sense.
In order for PPHM shareholders to make money a BP is going to have to have a lot of faith in SK. I think the silence speaks volumes on his reputation or lack therof.
CP
I would not dismiss data out of hand just because it disagrees with your premise. The essence of science is to listen to the data, not to try and explain unfavorable data away.
It is not possible that two PPHM trials were tampered with. This defies the imagination. If people here really think that it would be a great story that I am sure the NY Times, or washington post, or LA Times would investigate and run with.
You can look at the PPHM PR they are replete with "promising" and lack any hard statistically significant data.
I admire your defense of King and company. You are certainly loyal. My question would be what would it take for you to start having second thoughts?
As for my agenda, it is simple I think the mgmt of PPHM is awful. If there is any utility in Bavi King and Co, will never find it.