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.
PS is not recognized by the immune system as a threat since it's on the outside of regular dying cells, rather than being on the inside as it is in healthy cells.. that's apparently why the immune system doesn't attack cancer cells aggressively; the PS has flipped to the outside on them so they're essentially disguised as normal, dying cells, and bypassed by the immune system... bavi changes that...the immune system then detects nasty cells, and attacks the same cells bavi has latched onto since it targets the PS. this immune response may be requiring a bit of time...that's where the 'slower' comment comes from.
several bashers kept claiming that their agreements with UTSW weren't ironclad...and that the lead discoverer of the anti-PS approach, Dr Thorpe, and the University were going to essentially be able to walk away.
i do not believe it has ever been tested legally, but their agreements are essentially boiler plate-comprehensive...
i suppose Attorney Diligence will jump all over that...
this board's moderator started this back-and-forth.
yes, some pphm'ers are premature in their level of certainty...no doubt about it...but the thought that keep's pounding in my head is that some skeptics are confusing the the science with the company.
because it's taken a long time to get to this point (and for which drugs is that not the case?), and pphm has been chronically tight for funds (which biotechs aren't before they score?), and because you could make a strong argument that they did some slimy finance deals in the past, they have a definitively uphill battle and old wounds/scars with many..no doubt about it.
on the other hand...
their slimy deals did keep the science mostly unencumbered, which bodes well if it proves to be successful in any of several of the oncology, viral, imaging, or delivery applications for which trials are being reviewed..
there was an earlier post today that trashed them for the ATM, as if the investors were not well aware that dilution was necessary at that point, again.. sure beat more PIPES and warrants...
PPHM went through years of bashers claiming they didn't REALLY have rights to the science. i guess that one will come around again soon, too. will that happen here first?
since 'all that nonsense' is from official releases, it ain't nonsense just because you don't believe it's true.
will you come out and state, again, that you believe it's intentionally misleading?
the people here spending an absurd amount of energy poo-pooing what pphm executives have been saying for the record recently need to give it a rest.
the rose-colored glasses crowd has been following pphm for 10+ years, and has decent reason to believe it may be a bit different this time. half of skeptics here are largely admittedly uninformed on the details of the science, yet feel they know enough to doubt the progress numerous pros are commenting on in the scientific and financial communities.
you are making assumptions that the trial design is weak, the baselines are different from each other, it's statistically insignificant, there's no HR, PPHM is hiding the truth, blah blah blah.
you're assuming PPHM is intentionally misleading the public and accusing them of being fraudulent.
is it because the results are too good to be true if they're not lying/misrepresenting? is it because you guys haven't personally reviewed the results and you're smarter than the people who are??
why don't you all just shut up and admit we'll all see soon enough?
if they get a partnership deal in the fairly near term after what will surely be exhaustive due diligence on the research details, what will be your basis for assuming there isn't any validity then?
jake. you might want to consider therapy. your obsession is out of control.
sixpack...nuthin' wrong with that announcement...we're good.
and pray that somebody, anybody, publishes a rumor about some additional named outfit being in negotiations with us
it would be crazy for tustin to upset the applecart right now when they know they've set up a run... they're just starting to gain back some credibility, and i suspect they're going to try hard to build on it
although a curveball announcement Monday on some topic we haven't been discussing much would shake things up and pull more people in, wouldn't it?
cheynew...no worries...no need for anybody to jump in today...
king didn't say there were 15 companies...he said there had been 15 face to face meeting as of that call, and more since.
the best comment was that, due to due diligence issues, they're doing their day jobs at night.
so tell us what his name was on as VP of regulatory..
if you're saying he was inconsequential, back it up. otherwise, you're saying he's another case of a 'successful' person lying about their qualifications and experience. are you saying his bio is a gross misrepresentation? that's a serious allegation, and if you have the goods, i would want to know, as would many others.
ya know, we PPHMers, or at east a lot of us, didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
we can handle the truth. the fact that several intelligent folks here are trying to blow holes in everything PPHM says is one thing, but do some of you need to be so condescending?
show some class, for cryin' out loud.
crutch...are you suggesting that pphm is trying to slip a fast one by the FDA when it comes to validating the phase II results so they can get approval to move to phase III? that's insulting to plenty of scientists, not to mention the FDA officials.
that's an absurd accusation, especially for a company that's trying hard to overcome years of skepticism.
correct, Dew, but that doesn't mean the results are necessarily invalid, as you consistently insist.
just exactly what will it take for you to acknowledge that perhaps, just maybe, there's a tiny possibility that PPHM's technology could be a significant and useful development scientifically and financially?
if it goes up another few hundred percent on heavy volume, is it just another scam, and are all of the buyers or professionals commenting positively all just crooks?
when I know what I want in negotiations and the people across the table want me to make the deal with them, I make them say the number first. I hope that's what we're doing.
piano...most active posters here are long A LOT of shares, and think it could rocket big-time from here. there's not much interest in gambling for a few thousand here and a few thousand there.
keeping seat belts fastened could make many of us hundreds of thousands here, just by getting near $10... most of us here don't want to be anything other than fully buckled in right now. missing a blast-off after waiting and watching for 10+ years wouldn't go over well.
looks to me like the MM can drag this back up any time they want to. shares offered just completely dry up and she comes right back up. looks like a fairly healthy day to me.
pphmtoolong... i think we need to be careful about assuming approval is right around the corner. still a lot of headwinds for that...
makes more sense to me that the trial results are what pphm projected they would be when having discussions with some big outfit..and this move up has more to do with an impending licensing deal with up front $ that could remove the going concern clause while the phase III water-torture commences..
i suspect that many of the shorts from the 7/31 report have already covered...contributing to our rise...
at the same time, it's a good bet that there are new shorts coming in now...
Dew.. with the latest statements from Peregrine at financial conferences and quarterly results sessions, along with Thorpe's date book full of keynote speaking invitations, the numerous invites to upcoming invitation-only conferences, the late-breaking abstract accepted in chicago, Ayers new purchase, a 400% per share price increase in 6 weeks.... are you still certain the drug is a placebo?
if so, would you care to tell us why you're so sure in the face of what a growing number of actual professionals are seeing?
Bio...check the late-breaking abstract eligibility criteria in chicago.
you can't get burned badly enough to make me happy
sure hope it's not discussing bavi's MOS being achieved at a 70% increase over SOC
goat's smile ain't that big considerin' he ain't 'bout to be dinner anytime soon now...
i lost!
yippppeeeeee
losin' won't bother me none
let me rephrase the question... is an entity holding/keeping us where we are so we will be technically in play to power higher with visibility that comes with a decent news blurb? we all know how TA goes...and our chart says we're close.... is this something our benefactors could facilitate without being illegal by the letter of the law?
is our market maker keeping the price up so we can power through resistance we're so close to on good news and fly?
how 'bout some special Loofman's Smoked Chickens for the prize?
somebody is managing the pps down again, unfortunately. i was hoping we might be done with that.
this morning's bid is far below the ask, and the ask is below yesterday's close. that's the trend for several days, and it screams manipulation, IMO. And it's completely legal.
While it smells, here's to hoping it's orchestrated to manage the technicals...so it can run wild through algos soon
has your missus had a wardrobe malfunction?
this trading recommendation actually had something positive to say about pphm... even though they're suggesting a sell here, it's pretty clear it's on their radar for future action.
first time in a long time the morning 'ask' is below the prior day's close...
quite a stand-off. might be a hair artificial...seemed like a paint job to me. i hope it continues to hold...
interesting slow action today. nice battle going on...big bids can't pull it down...nobody offering shares for a change...
how to MMs do this?
moderators! the post should be reinstated.
wtmm
no...fell short by 7,000,000
today's close likely to be flat-ish. volume drying, people waiting.
bad rep largely from financing deals and refusal to strengthen board with any legit outsiders. brokers will all tell you that.
our bod has a very poor reputation on the street. it is finally looking like the science is about to make their reputation an afterthought.
somebody is going to have to acquire the rights to take this stuff to center stage.