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.
Maybe they're turning over a new leaf. They just flew me to Vegas, put me up at the Venetian for 2 nights(over $1000), provided all meals, and paid me $500, for my advice, along with 32 other participants, on how to improve sales on one of their products. If this doesn't qualify as bottom up, I don't know what does.
Sorry I mixed that up. I'm certainly not suggesting a buy-out.
I just know that there is a lot of exchange between the major drug companies, even though they're in fierce competition with each other. Getting CYGX on the radar screen of even one person of influence makes it likely to spread to other areas.
Just got back from a drug conference in Las Vegas sponsored by Sanofi, the French drug co. They may soon be taken over by Aventis, which would then become the 3rd largest drug co. in the world. I asked one of their scientists if Sanofi was into any anti-sense work, and he said no. He was familiar with the concept, oligos, etc, and with the prior problems with toxicity.
I gave him my card with the CYGX url written on the back, and he said he'd take a look at it and get back to me. Sanofi has a pretty good pipeline with stuff both in pre IND and Phase 1-3, but they have nothing in the antneoplasm or antibiotic/antiviral lines. Will post if he gets back to me.
Once the basic science is proved in humans, we will without a doubt be a take-over target. Too many big pharmas need their pipelines filled, and boy could we fill them.
CD, probably the higher figures are closer to the truth. Phase 1&2 studies are cheaper because they involve far fewer trials and subjects. Phase III is much more expensive. CYGX officers have stated on several occasions that they intend to partner with a large pharmaceutical co. before entering Phase III studies. And I do agree that the share price will take off at that point, because it tells the market that there is enough good science behind the drug for a larger co to risk the investment. Take a look at Neurocrine Biosciences (http://www.neurocrine.com/home_int.html). They have 5 or 6 drugs in Phase I & II, have 35 mil shares out, and are loosing .95/share. Yet their PPS is near $60! If you look at their 10K, it lists all the big companies they have partnered with. There is also a good explanation of the difference between Phase I,II,III trials. One difference between us and Neurocrine is that some drugs that improve cancer survival rates from say 6 months to 12 months will take thousands of patients to prove that. If we can prove that the survival rate from sepsis jumps dramatically, that can be shown with relatively few subjects. It's easy to tell the difference between someone who dies and someone who walks out of the hospital!
From my limited bio-science knowledge, it sounds like this approach to making a vaccine is still in the traditional mold,
and that using 5 existing strains from around the world would probably cover most of the viral strains out there now, but what is there to prevert the little bugger from mutating again and again until a new strain develops. Also, it doesn't appear that this technique employs gene-silencing, which is what CYGX is into. Would appreciate comments from someone more skilled in the science.
No volume = no panic selling = MM games. Perhaps a PR later in the week?
Given their budgetary constraints, its not at all amazing. That's why they need additional funding ASAP. They have sufficient lab space, and could move forward in many more areas with additional help. At least they're not piling up a huge debt load.
Anybody see the news from Genentech (symbol DNA) this AM? Their anti-psoriasis drug has not been a screaming success, and it sounds like it has many potential serious side effects. Demonstrates what a revolutionary approach CYGX's treatment will be if successful.
Company News
DNA DNA
Genentech, Inc. NYSE
Back to Headlines / Previous Story
Genentech and XOMA Announce Results Of Phase II Study of Raptiva(TM) in Psoriatic Arthritis Patients
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, and BERKELEY, Calif., March 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Genentech, Inc.(NYSE:DNA) (NYSE: DNA) and XOMA Ltd.(NASDAQ-NMS:XOMA) (Nasdaq: XOMA) today announced preliminary results of a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II study with RAPTIVATM (efalizumab) in 107 patients with psoriatic arthritis. The study did not reach statistical significance at 12 weeks (84 days) for the primary endpoint, ACR 20 response. An ACR 20 response indicates at least a 20 percent improvement in an individual's signs and symptoms of arthritis.
After 12 weeks of therapy, 28 percent of patients receiving RAPTIVA(TM) achieved an ACR 20 response compared to 19 percent of patients receiving placebo. In the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores for patients receiving RAPTIVA were similar to the statistically significant results demonstrated in Phase III clinical studies in psoriasis. There was no worsening in the signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis with RAPTIVA treatment. Treatment with RAPTIVA was well tolerated. There were no adverse events of arthritis on therapy or during the four-week follow-up period after discontinuation of therapy.
"While the treatment effect of RAPTIVA did not show a significant benefit in psoriatic arthritis, the effect on the skin manifestations of chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis was consistent with data from our existing clinical trial database. This observation demonstrates that while psoriatic arthritis is associated with the skin disease psoriasis, these are distinct diseases," said Hal Barron, M.D., F.A.C.C., Genentech's senior vice president of Development and chief medical officer.
Genentech and XOMA plan to present these data at an upcoming medical meeting.
About Psoriatic Arthritis
Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory disease that affects joints, ligaments, tendons and, less frequently, the spine. Although psoriatic arthritis is associated with and occurs in a subset of patients with psoriasis, they are considered distinct diseases, which may have different pathophysiologies. According to the American College of Rheumatology, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) are the initial treatment for arthritis symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis.
About RAPTIVA(TM)
As a targeted T-cell modulator, RAPTIVA is designed to reversibly block the activity of T-cells without destroying them. T-cells play a key role in the development of psoriasis. In October 2003, RAPTIVA was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults age 18 or older who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy.
In clinical trials of RAPTIVA in patients with psoriasis, common adverse events that occurred at least two percent more frequently in RAPTIVA patients than in placebo included headache, infection (mostly upper respiratory infections), chills, nausea, pain, myalgia (muscle pain), flu syndrome, fever, back pain, and acne. Five of these events (headache, chills, fever, nausea and myalgia) were predominantly acute adverse events and were principally seen following the first two injections of RAPTIVA. For the third and subsequent doses, the incidence of acute adverse events was similar between the RAPTIVA and placebo groups. Less than one percent of patients were discontinued from treatment due to acute adverse events.
RAPTIVA(TM) is an immunosuppressive agent and has the potential to increase the risk of infection and reactivate latent, chronic infections. Many immunosuppressive agents have the potential to increase the risk of malignancy. The role of RAPTIVA in the development of malignancies is not known. Serious adverse events occurring in clinical studies with RAPTIVA, which were infrequent and similar to placebo, include serious infections (0.4 percent in RAPTIVA vs. 0.1 percent in placebo), malignancy (the overall incidence of malignancies of any kind was 1.8 per 100 patient-years for RAPTIVA-treated patients compared with 1.6 per 100 patient-years for placebo-treated patients), thrombocytopenia (0.3 percent), and worsening of psoriasis, typically upon discontinuation (0.7 percent).
RAPTIVA was developed in the U.S. through a partnership between Genentech and XOMA for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Genentech and Serono have an agreement through which Serono receives an exclusive license to market RAPTIVA outside of the U.S., Japan and certain other Asian countries. On March 16, 2004, Serono announced approval for RAPTIVA in Switzerland for adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.
Serono announced in February 2003 that it had submitted a Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) for European Union Approval of RAPTIVA in psoriasis. Serono anticipates a final decision during the second half of 2004.
About Genentech
Genentech is a leading biotechnology company that discovers, develops, manufactures and commercializes biotherapeutics for significant unmet medical needs. Eighteen of the currently approved biotechnology products originated from or are based on Genentech science. Genentech manufactures and commercializes 13 biotechnology products in the United States. The company has headquarters in South San Francisco, California and is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DNA. For additional information about the company, please visit http://www.gene.com.
About XOMA
XOMA is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and manufacturing antibody and other protein-based biopharmaceuticals for disease targets that include cancer, immunological and inflammatory disorders, and infectious diseases. XOMA's proprietary and collaborative product development programs include: RAPTIVA(TM) for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (marketed), psoriatic arthritis (Phase II) and other indications in collaboration with Genentech, Inc.(NYSE:DNA) ; MLN 2222, a recombinant protein for reducing the incidence of post-operative events in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients with Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(NASDAQ-NMS:MLNM) (Phase I); a TPO mimetic antibody to treat chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in collaboration with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(NASDAQ-NMS:ALXN) (preclinical) and a multiple antibody product candidate program for the treatment of cancer in collaboration with Chiron Corporation(NASDAQ-NMS:CHIR) (preclinical). XOMA's proprietary bactericidal/permeability-increasing protein (BPI)-derived programs include XMP.629, a topical formulation of a BPI-derived compound for acne (Phase II), and NEUPREX(R) in a Phase I/II study to limit complications following pediatric cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. For more information about XOMA's product pipeline and antibody product development capabilities and technologies, please visit XOMA's website at http://www.xoma.com.
Regarding XOMA:
Statements contained herein related to product development and collaborative arrangements, or that otherwise relate to future periods, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These statements are based on assumptions that may not prove accurate. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated due to certain risks inherent in the biotechnology industry and for companies engaged in the development of new products in a regulated market. These risks, including those related to safety and efficacy of the products being studied; action, inaction or delay by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, European regulators or their advisory bodies; analysis and interpretation of scientific data by these entities and others; changes in the status of existing collaborative relationships; the ability of collaborators and other partners to meet their obligations; and market demand for products, are described in more detail in XOMA's most recent annual report on Form 10-K and in other SEC filings.
Media Contact: Tara Cooper (650) 225-5505
Investor Contact: Lisa Tuomi (650) 225-6554
www.gene.com
Media and Investor Contact: Laura Zobkiw
(510) 204-7273
SOURCE Genentech, Inc.(NYSE:DNA)
; XOMA Ltd.(NASDAQ-NMS:XOMA)
-0- 03/22/2004
/CONTACT: Media, Tara Cooper, +1-650-225-5505, or Investor Contact: Lisa
Tuomi, +1-650-225-6554, both of Genentech, Inc.(NYSE:DNA)
; or Media and Investors, Laura
Zobkiw of XOMA Ltd.(NASDAQ-NMS:XOMA)
, +1-510-204-7273/
/Web site: http://www.xoma.com" target="_new">http://www.gene.comhttp://www.xoma.com /
(DNA XOMA)
CO: Genentech, Inc.(NYSE:DNA)
; XOMA Ltd.(NASDAQ-NMS:XOMA)
ST: California
IN: HEA MTC BIO
SU: SVY
AL
-- NYM138 --
4827 03/22/200401:00 ESThttp://www.prnewswire.com
© Copyright / Disclaimer / Trademarks / Privacy Statement / Contact Us / Help / Search
arnold, my advice (unsolicited) is to take a break from your demands for public disclosure of potentially proprietary commercial names and sources of financing. As you stated, nothing has to be disclosed until the 10Q comes out. This is an EXTREMELY competitive field, with billions of $ at stake.
Balance sheet information in a competitor's hands, or in a potential partner's hands, before a deal is struck, places CYGX at a significant disadvantage. Call or e-mail the company if you like. They know any information they give you will be all over the internet in seconds. I've got no problems with the way they release information. We are shareholders, not board members.
Thalio, doesn't this suggest to you that this company has a solution to the delivery problem? How do you think they are doing it? If true, they won't be hurting for money for too long, IMO.
Looks like we're heading back down to the 200 day MA, currently .63.
Is this our single current patent, or is it a pending amplification of a 1999 patent?http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FP...
What I'm wondering is, is this written broadly enough to prevent some well-funded lawyers from working around it? Shutting down now. Will be back in AM.
How long does it take for a mouse with induced lung CA, intreated, to die? Just a deviant way to ask how long we'll be waiting for results, and if results can be announced in a PR, or if it has to be kept confidential until published?
Rather paltry volume, wide spread. Are most of the sales going through at the ask? Does this picture look like a PR after the bell?
Don't think it's been tried where I work. We have tried a retractable needle system that seems to be effective in preventing accidental needle sticks. Always look to the cost.
If an innovation is much more costly, it won't get utilized unless it is vastly superior to what's out there.
Try www.khou.com. EOM
Late release of the PR is just a sign the company's growing up.
All major companies release share price moving news after the bell. Level's the playing field.
Rick, or anyone, what do you think the mode of delivery was for the mice who got the DNA? 100% success is incredible.
Just couldn't resist a joke back. Hope we hear some good news soon.
OK Arnold, next time you have an outbreak, DIP IT IN CLOROX!
neo, I agree with need for caution and with your last sentence.
However, I never felt angiogenesis had a bright future, and it offers the same hollow promise to cancer sufferers as does ordinary chemotherapy...a few extra months to live, and the draining of your bank account. The fantastic hope behind anti-sense is for a possible cure, without poisoning your body. That's why we're all here.
Rick, according to the WSJ, the reason it was postponed was ostensibly inadequate software at many firms for properly recording trades. The extra time was granted to update the software, not to give more time to cover. John
I also think a company has to make a distinction between what is real news and what would constitute a sort of progress report. Too many PR's start to look like fluff, and then the real ones don't get noticed.
Agree on all points. We have no personal relationship.
arnold, they don't give out confidential information to individuals, and Skolnik says it is a potential SEC problem regarding the WAY information is disemminated. John
Raptor, you're right...but I did hear from Malcomb today.
Hopefully we're still on speaking terms.
Tex, I may be the cause of lack of communication with Malcolm, et al. Remember the post I made just prior to the SHM? It was a response to an e-mail I sent Malcolm with questions I asked to be addressed at the meeting. He replied to me, and I posted his response, assuming anything he said to me he would be willing to state publically. Well, about 2 days later I received a terse and angry e-mail from him, essentially accusing me of breech of faith for posting his reply. Furthermore, he CC'd his response to Wunderlich and Chen. Which leads me to 2 conclusions: They do monitor this board at the company, and they might be reticent to reply to posters here.
Interesting story. It appears delivery is also an issue with their treatment, since they're injecting it directly into tumors, which may limit it's usefulness. Also of interest was a big article in Sunday's San Diego Union (home of Qualcomm),
about how China has a big campain on to get away from paying royalties to foreign companies, QCOM being one example, and MSFT being another. They are trying to do this by developing similar but modified technologies that they call their own.
If Cy Stein is on the SAB of both companies, and the two companies are competitors, doesn't that raise anyone's concern?
OT...I like Celebrex better because you don't have to be so concerned about possible BP effects. Both seem to work well as an NSAID. Just have to remember to ask about sulfa allergy with Celebrex. Many people who think they're allergic to sulfa really aren't.
Skooby, If you didn't make such outrageous statements so often, you wouldn't have to be defending yourself all the time.
Latest example: "If you can stop it's (bacteria) growth in the lab, you can stop it anywhere." Just the opposite is true. The lab is the easiest place to attack bacteria, where none of the myriad of variables found in the human body are present.
As for Thalio, many days ago he stated he would not be chatting here until new scientific information was released.
Otherwise, he's busy.
Rick, Same reason they attached a sulfa molecule to Celebrex, the very successful arthritis drug. It makes it easier to absorb. It serves no other purpose.
With regard to questions 4, 5 and 6:
Bunker Hunt and the Hunt Trust are shareholders;
The Company has considered several responses to unacceptable take-over attempts; and
We are working with Phanuel Pursuits, Ltd. to move forward in both India and PRC.
Confidentiality and propriety dictate the form of the above.
MS
-----Original Message-----
From: John Schneider [mailto:jschnei2@san.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:44 PM
To: mskolnick@cytogenix.com
Subject: SHM
Dear Dr Skolnick,
I will be unable to attend the shareholder's meeting, and while I am very pleased with the progress of the company over the past year, there are several issues that I hope are discussed and clarified at the meeting:
1) Has the prior issue of new shares been done in a legal and appropriate manner?
2) What assurances can be given that current and anticipated finances are adequate to move the company forward?
3) Is a CFO without an apparent college degree up to the task of steering this company into important business relationships?
4) What is Bunker Hunt's financial relationship with the company?
5) Is there any "poison pill" in place to prevent an unwanted take-over attempt?
6) What progress has Phanuel Pursuits made in India and China?
Thanks in advance for your guidance on these issues.
John E Schneider RN
Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation
Dear Mr. Schneider: Thank you for your inquiry. We are sorry we can not greet you in person at the SHM. With regard to your questions:
We received an opinion from the Nevada Secretary of State's Office that under our Articles of Incorporation, the Board of Directors could increase the number of authorized shares. Upon subsequent review, our SEC attorney advised us that an affirming vote by the shareholders would be appropriate, especially in today's climate. Resolution #1 on the present proxy is the result. The whole proxy with all resolutions was submitted to the SEC before distribution to the shareholders and passed without comment.
There are no assurances about funding that we can make other than to say that we intend to work as hard as we can to continue to secure funds to maintain and increase our progress. We have been and are in constant contact with high net worth individuals, investment bankers and institutions who have supported us in the past and/or evinced interest in supporting us as we go forward. We have sufficient funds on hand to continue operations and are implementing plans for acquisition of additional funds.
Our CFO is one of the principal reasons we are still a viable and growing company. Without his tireless efforts we may very well have failed. His energy, determination and intelligence are vital components in our efforts to make the company profitable and increase shareholder value.
Cordially, Malcolm Skolnick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Schneider [mailto:jschnei2@san.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 6:44 PM
To: mskolnick@cytogenix.com
Subject: SHM
Dear Dr Skolnick,
I will be unable to attend the shareholder's meeting, and while I am very pleased with the progress of the company over the past year, there are several issues that I hope are discussed and clarified at the meeting:
1) Has the prior issue of new shares been done in a legal and appropriate manner?
2) What assurances can be given that current and anticipated finances are adequate to move the company forward?
3) Is a CFO without an apparent college degree up to the task of steering this company into important business relationships?
4) What is Bunker Hunt's financial relationship with the company?
5) Is there any "poison pill" in place to prevent an unwanted take-over attempt?
6) What progress has Phanuel Pursuits made in India and China?
Thanks in advance for your guidance on these issues.
John E Schneider RN
Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation
Gimble, read post #182. EOM.
How do you know it hasn't? How do you know they haven't been turned away?
Kila, You are right on with your thoughts. The shares are not only currency for a possible company purchase. How about a purchase of Baylor's proprietary aerosol delivery system, now about to be tested with our lung CA treatment? Or the liposome technology owned by BioZone? We shouldn't be tying CYGX's hands from making this sort of deal. The additional shares will not be frittered away to fat cats, and the company's worth will be enhanced, not diminished, as will our shares.
Who's going to be at the SHM and give us rapid updates? Did anyone volunteer for this? I'm keeping my fingers crossed that management will announce some kind of funding news; possibly the MM's are taking the price down to restock???
Options are issued in liew of cash when a company is short on cash. The exercise date prevents them from being dumped on the market immediately. Even companies that are flush with cash issue options to their top employees. It is a good thing because if the business doesn't succeed, they're worthless. A powerful motivator for management to perform. IMO, our current leadership is worth a lot more than we can currently afford to pay them.