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.
Conference Call Transcript:
http://content.stockpr.com/sec/0001104659-14-085825/0001104659-14-085825.pdf
I might add that I was also in attendance. :)
Tom schraeder -- Managing Director at Stifil
Reni Benjamin -- Analyst at H.C. Wainwright
Jason Kolbert -- Analyst at Maxim
How about those for starters? There were a few others in attendance too.
Thanks for the good wishes for ONCS. 2015 will likely be an amazingly good year for them.
Cheers!
Look at the market cap of each company. Nothing else should be expected.
ONCS will continue to gain exposure and recognition. They had a number of well respected institutions present at the recent conference call.
This exposure will continue to rise as interest in the technology grows rapidly into next year, especially after the interim P2b results, due in the first half of 2015. That will be a watershed event for the company.
No problem, we understand your opinion. Take care.
Everyone here can do their own due diligence on Dr. Pierce.
No further information is needed here from my perspective.
A very recent contribution by Dr. Pierce:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13954.html
So, what's your point? Anyone can be replaced.
But I've got money on Dr. Pierce that he won't be replaced anytime soon. LOL LOL
Dr. Pierce's background and experience:
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=252870140&ticker=ONCS
Dr. Robert Hamilton Pierce M.D. has been the Chief Scientific Officer and Global Head of R&D at OncoSec Medical Incorporated since September 16, 2014. Dr. Pierce served as the Chief Medical Officer of OncoSec Medical Incorporated since December 12, 2013 until September 16, 2014.
Dr. Pierce served at Merck Research Labs -- Palo Alto where he spent almost seven years in leading a 20--person team, dedicated to developing disease-oriented and tissue-based translational medicine platforms.
From 2001 to 2007, he served several leadership positions at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, including Director of the Autopsy Service at Strong Memorial Hospital.
Dr. Pierce was responsible for contributions to multiple successful IND applications, including critical biomarker development programs such as the anti-PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay supporting Merck's MK-3475 trials. He was instrumental in designing two Phase 2 anti-PD-1 (MK-3475) oncology studies.
He focused on immunomodulatory receptor (IMR) programs. He served as a Discovery Project Team Leader for two novel drug candidates. He served as an Executive Director of Merck Research Labs. He practiced as a staff pathologist to develop the graduate curriculum in pathomechamism of disease.
He was the principal investigator of a RO1-funded research lab, Dr. Pierce played an important role in the university's clinical and academic research programs.
He is the co-author of over fifty peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, and is a reviewer for numerous scientific journals as well as National Institute of Health grants.
Dr. Pierce is well regarded for his career-long research into mechanisms of immune tolerance and has drug development experience. He is a key Member of the global development team behind Merck's FDA-designated "breakthrough" anti-PD-1 program (MK-3475).
He was a Fulbright Award recipient. He studied Philosophy at the Albert-Ludwigs-University in Freiburg, Germany. He is a graduate of Yale College and Brown University School of Medicine. Dr. Pierce received his Post-Doctoral Training at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA. He trained at Brown University School of Medicine in Providence, RI, and received an Undergraduate Education at Yale University in New Haven, CT.
Yes, I think we have a pretty good pedigree here.
I don't believe we were discussing patents.
Here, let us educate you about Dr. Pierce's background:
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=252870140&ticker=ONCS
Dr. Robert Hamilton Pierce M.D. has been the Chief Scientific Officer and Global Head of R&D at OncoSec Medical Incorporated since September 16, 2014. Dr. Pierce served as the Chief Medical Officer of OncoSec Medical Incorporated since December 12, 2013 until September 16, 2014. Dr. Pierce served at Merck Research Labs -- Palo Alto where he spent almost seven years in leading a 20--person team, dedicated to developing disease-oriented and tissue-based translational medicine platforms. From 2001 to 2007, he served several leadership positions at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, including Director of the Autopsy Service at Strong Memorial Hospital. Dr. Pierce was responsible for contributions to multiple successful IND applications, including critical biomarker development programs such as the anti-PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assay supporting Merck's MK-3475 trials. He was instrumental in designing two Phase 2 anti-PD-1 (MK-3475) oncology studies. He focused on immunomodulatory receptor (IMR) programs. He served as a Discovery Project Team Leader for two novel drug candidates. He served as an Executive Director of Merck Research Labs. He practiced as a staff pathologist to develop the graduate curriculum in pathomechamism of disease. He was the principal investigator of a RO1-funded research lab, Dr. Pierce played an important role in the university's clinical and academic research programs. He is the co-author of over fifty peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, and is a reviewer for numerous scientific journals as well as National Institute of Health grants. Dr. Pierce is well regarded for his career-long research into mechanisms of immune tolerance and has drug development experience. He is a key Member of the global development team behind Merck's FDA-designated "breakthrough" anti-PD-1 program (MK-3475). He was a Fulbright Award recipient. He studied Philosophy at the Albert-Ludwigs-University in Freiburg, Germany. He is a graduate of Yale College and Brown University School of Medicine. Dr. Pierce received his Post-Doctoral Training at the University of Washington, Seattle, WA. He trained at Brown University School of Medicine in Providence, RI, and received an Undergraduate Education at Yale University in New Haven, CT.
There is no reason to replace Dr. Pierce.
Anyone even thinking that will need to have their head examined.
He essentially created Keytruda (MK-3475) while he was a scientist at Merck. He then saw the potential for combining it with ImmunoPulse and that is a big reason why he joined ONCS earlier this year.
I suspect that after the positive interim P2b (ImmunoPulse/Keytruda) trial results are known that he will become much more visible in the oncology field.
There is no reason to replace Dr. Pierce.
We should see some sustainable moves above 0.50 within the next 3-6 months.
Agreed.
Are you going to do it?
The PVCT example you cited was pretty poor, if you're referring to "competition."
Their monotherapies have no chance against combination therapies.
Just finished dinner and a little research on PVCT reveals:
1. Questionable efficacy for their lead monotherapy (PV-10).
2. Lawsuits against the company for misrepresenting (PV-10).
3. No initiated combinatorial therapy trials for (PV-10)
4. Adam Feuerstein speaking out against the company.
5. A BIG need to raise cash in 2015.
If you drill into their P2 trial, it appear "reasonable" as a monotherapy, but less systemic immunity was noted than was with ONCS' IL-12. And no statistics were available to support the summarized numbers, raising questions about them. The progression free survival rates were abysmal; only 3.7 months for Stage III and 1.9 months for Stage IV. Overall survival rates were similar to that of the normal population. The list of side effects and adverse events was fairly long.
PV-10 is a monotherapy with very mixed results. As for PVCT itself? A speculative play which will likely end badly.
NEXT?
I'll need to drill into PV-10 more to get a better understanding of how it works. Thanks.
But I'm going to drill into steak for dinner, first, though!
PVCT does seem to need money, however. They will either need to raise cash and dilute or hope to get a partnership in 2015. Thanks for the information about them.
Amen.
Will check them out... thanks.
Question for dr_lowenstein:
Is ONCS trailing other start-ups in the melanoma oncology space? If you believe so, please tell us why. If not, please tell us why.
Silence is acceptance that ONCS is a leader in this space.
We'll know in less than 18 hours. :)
LOL. We will reserve judgement until after the CC on Tuesday.
Stay tuned.
LOL. That was "then" and this is "now." Thanks.
Past recruitment is not necessarily a very good predictor for future recruitment. Far more money is available now then there was during that trial, for example. And there certainly is no shortage of melanoma patients fitting the criteria.
Let's see if the company states their intention about recruitment numbers during the CC. That will be far more accurate than any anecdotal historical information.
Stay tuned.
I'll take a look after the CC on Tuesday. Thanks.
You can agree to disagree, but ONCS can reach a market cap > 300M without even completing those trials.
Can you tell the board the basis and where you get THIS enrollment rate?
Most would disagree with you.
My answer to that is that "it depends."
BTD status could easily cut that in half, if not more.
And interim results in 2015 will be very telling. That's well less than a year away. Most will know then how effective this COMBINATION therapy will be.
The data "met expectations." Often times, the Street expects more than that in the short-term.
Nothing to worry about, long-term.
The conference call on Tuesday will add some clarity to both trial results and also provide strategic guidance going forward for the company.
I'm looking forward to it.
Sorry for the misspellings in my previous post:
run NATURALLY higher instead of MANIPULATIVELY lower.
The trial was not expected to show anything more than the promise of the technology. It will never be used as a monotherapy. Do you not understand this?
ONCS is building part of the solution. Most cancer therapies will be combinatorial in the future. Think of the BASF analogy I've mentioned numerous times on this board in the past.
I'm not saying it's the case here, but in the past we've seen paid shills brought in for a specific agenda.
And the agenda? To scare retail into selling their shares so that hedge funds and larger institutions can accumulate cheaply before the MMs are given the "green light" to let the stock run NATURALY higher instead of MANIPULATELY lower.
Again, I am NOT saying that is the case here.
Yes, but we would need access to the complete data set for determining type 1 or type II errors.
And in this case, the sample sizes are pretty small for the individual cohorts.
I hope the P2B trial enrolls more patients.
What I've posted for a long time is that Dr. Pierce is the most important and knowledgeable person in the company.
He should take center stage for more of the dissemination of this information. I've often said that if Dr. Pierce were to leave the company I'd be the very first investor heading for the hills, after Dr. Pierce himself!
I believe the science is both interesting and perhaps groundbreaking in a combination trial. The company does have a long way to go, but that path could be shortened considerably by excellent interim P2b data and well disseminated results.
The tweeting could be looked upon as an immature CEO, just a sign of the times, both, or maybe more.
How would you have released the last two PRs? Change the language? Added more content? Would enjoy hearing your opinion.
Over promoted? How so? Most would say that they have under promoted.
I would expect there to be interim results as the P2b trial progresses.
Agreed. I would like to see the company be more transparent about this 30th patient.
Which is exactly why I believe that any interim results will be extremely not only for the trial itself but for the company as well.
LOL. I would suggest to you that all of those reasons and any more you can name are "personal" to the patient. LOL.