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.
I read no votes in the house because of Bush death. I expect vote next week.
Can see CWBHF having a $3B-$10B market cap once FB passes. Possible huge distribution deals, acquisitions, beverage deal and uplist. and this -> Once CBD is fully legalized, we expect that market to absolutely explode,with sales hitting $22 billion by 2022, which is higher than the US Cannabis industry, Beth Gomez, director of research at Brightfield Group said. That growth will absolutely be a result of legalization.
New bill to legalize industrial hemp in US. AOI already bought in to criticality and said they will be a leader in this field. AOI only way to play this
Looking good
Have taken much of my $TRIL position off heading into ASH. I broke tons of rules on this stock and deserve criticism, will learn from it. I hope for the best for longs.
Great post by dewophile when I asked him if he thought Stanford was not having platelet issues due to lower or no efficacy:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=126481658
probably
or the sink issue leaving inadequate drug to disrupt the target axis in tissues other than RBCs
or some quirk w the drug where it spares platelets much like TRIL's drug spares RBCs. This is the least likely explanation. The most likely is use of a weaker immunoglobulin since there wasn't a hint of thrombocytopenia in either human or animal data, and stanford clearly chose the weaker IgG subtype due to toxicity concerns (one of which may have been affect on platelets)
you know stanford now is looking at combination with both rituxan and erbitux - i have a feeling they are just not seeing efficacy as monotherapy. I hope the fact we are seeing side effects with the TRIL drug that are not described w the stanford drug is a proxy for efficacy (much like rash with EGFR drugs)
Stanford has seen anemia but has not had the platelet issue thus far that I have seen..........do you think this is because their drug is not as potent ?
$TRIL Today's PR says purpose of P1B is to "further characterize anti-tumor activity" which alludes they saw anti-tumor activity in P1A and they seek to further characterize it in P1B. ..... and they said they look forward to presenting full data at ASH. " We are now in the multi-cohort expansion portion of the trial, seeking to further characterize safety and preliminary anti-tumor activity of TTI-621"
TRIL Today's PR says purpose of P1B is to "further characterize anti-tumor activity" which alludes they saw anti-tumor activity in P1A and they seek to further characterize it in P1B. ..... and they said they look forward to presenting full data at ASH. " We are now in the multi-cohort expansion portion of the trial, seeking to further characterize safety and preliminary anti-tumor activity of TTI-621"
That was my thought exactly on Surface drug.....CELG clone ....... best in class / potency is TRIL's
haha no problem .......you mean refuting the false safety issue !
Link to full TRIL Laden report in this tweet :
https://twitter.com/jayabacus/status/795619826475614208
Link to full TRIL Laden report in this tweet :
https://twitter.com/jayabacus/status/795619826475614208
$TRIL Laden out with note that refutes entire drop - 1) "We would like to share additional data that indicate a MTD of TTI-621 at 0.3 mg/kg is exactly expected from toxicology studies in monkeys and that the mouse version of TTI-621 exhibited clear anti-leukemic activity at a dose as low as 0.2 mg/kg in mouse, which is equivalent to ~0.02 mg/kg in human adults" 2) Together, we believe these animal data indicate a strong potency profile of TTI-621 and high probability for the expansion cohort dose 0.2 mg/kg to be active. 3) We believe this is also why TRIL is very confident at the expansion cohort dose so that it added two new cohorts including a combination cohort with Rituximab. Such protocol modifications required prior FDA and IRBs approval. The fact that TRIL quickly obtained approval from FDA and six new prominent cancer centers to swiftly start the TTI-621 Phase 1b study and add two new cohorts, suggests robust support from FDA and physicians, who should have seen the comprehensive Phase 1a data set, including the 0.2 mg/kg dose data. 4) We reiterate our view that the TRIL stock selloff responding to ASH abstract is an unwarranted overreaction, and we recommend investors take advantage of the current price weakness to purchase TRIL. We also believe, at current prices, the downside would be limited
$TRIL Laden out with note that refutes entire drop - 1) "We would like to share additional data that indicate a MTD of TTI-621 at 0.3 mg/kg is exactly expected from toxicology studies in monkeys and that the mouse version of TTI-621 exhibited clear anti-leukemic activity at a dose as low as 0.2 mg/kg in mouse, which is equivalent to ~0.02 mg/kg in human adults" 2) Together, we believe these animal data indicate a strong potency profile of TTI-621 and high probability for the expansion cohort dose 0.2 mg/kg to be active. 3) We believe this is also why TRIL is very confident at the expansion cohort dose so that it added two new cohorts including a combination cohort with Rituximab. Such protocol modifications required prior FDA and IRBs approval. The fact that TRIL quickly obtained approval from FDA and six new prominent cancer centers to swiftly start the TTI-621 Phase 1b study and add two new cohorts, suggests robust support from FDA and physicians, who should have seen the comprehensive Phase 1a data set, including the 0.2 mg/kg dose data. 4) We reiterate our view that the TRIL stock selloff responding to ASH abstract is an unwarranted overreaction, and we recommend investors take advantage of the current price weakness to purchase TRIL. We also believe, at current prices, the downside would be limited
biomaven - great answer to priming dose question
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=30826984
>>Stanford did a priming dose to allow them to go higher. It seems TRIL did not do this and chose to go with .2 . Do you see that as a sign of confidence in .2 ?
Well Stanford had no option but to go with the priming dose I suspect.
But what's unclear is if the same phenomenon happens with platelets as it does with RBCs - that the older ones are the more likely to get eaten, so a priming dose would help. In the TRIL early data there are indeed at least some hints that a priming dose would have helped - the effect on platelets maybe tails off some over time.
But as I see it there are still two reasonable possibilities (remember they have more data than disclosed to date):
1. Priming dose wouldn't have helped here much at all
2. They didn't see the need for it because they believe 0.2 is an active dose (looking at receptor occupancy, macrophage activation, etc.)
Stanford did a priming dose to allow them to go to higher doses. It seems TRIL did not do this and chose to go with .2 in the expansion . Do you see that as a sign of confidence in .2 ?
Stanford did a priming dose to allow them to go higher. It seems TRIL did not do this and chose to go with .2 . Do you see that as a sign of confidence in .2 ?
biomaven - great explanation on dose
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=30825754
To: super_trades who wrote (47681) 11/4/2016 8:41:40 PM
From: Biomaven Read Replies (1)
47682
of 47683
The key here for me is that (very likely) the mechanism of the toxicity is related directly to the mechanism of any efficacy. That's very different from an off-target toxicity of some sort.
If that tox mechanism is indeed correct (macrophages eating platelets), the absolute dosage level at which the DLT occurs isn't in the least significant - if the drug was less potent, then the DLT would simply happen at a higher dose, but you would see no gain in efficacy with that higher dose.
So really what is at issue is how the effect on platelets relates to the drug's effect on tumors - basically the therapeutic index. For that, we simply have to wait and see. In particular, the time course can be very different - I would expect any impact on tumors to be much slower, particularly if you need to wait for the adaptive immune system to engage. It might also be the case (as with RBCs) that "old" and "young" platelets react differently to the drug. Clearly also it is possible to add supportive measures like Promacta to the picture - that should allow a step-up in dose some. Or you could also move to a more intermittent dosing schedule to allow platelets time to recover.
The company handled this badly - they should have signalled something in their PR about the expansion of the trial.
TRIL dose questions response :
What makes TRIL management feel confident that point .2mg/kg could be effective?
TRIL's preclinical data indicates that TTI-621 is a potent molecule. TTI-621 is active at nanomolar concentrations in vitro and in AML xenograft studies the company observed anti-leukemic activity at human equivalent doses of 0.2 mg/kg or lower. TRIL believes the IgG1 Fc region, which can deliver an “eat” signal to macrophages through FcgR interactions, contributes significantly to this potency.
Are they surprised that the dose limiting toxicity happened at such a low dose?
No, as the DTL level of 0.3 mg/kg is consistent with what TRIL has observed in monkey studies.
TRIL dose questions response :
What makes TRIL management feel confident that point .2mg/kg could be effective?
TRIL's preclinical data indicates that TTI-621 is a potent molecule. TTI-621 is active at nanomolar concentrations in vitro and in AML xenograft studies the company observed anti-leukemic activity at human equivalent doses of 0.2 mg/kg or lower. TRIL believes the IgG1 Fc region, which can deliver an “eat” signal to macrophages through FcgR interactions, contributes significantly to this potency.
Are they surprised that the dose limiting toxicity happened at such a low dose?
No, as the DTL level of 0.3 mg/kg is consistent with what TRIL has observed in monkey studies.
yes CEO said there will be more detail in December presentation than abstract as it was submitted early
Cowen “we believe TRIL has identified a therapeutic dose that is both well tolerated and immunologically active” #BestInClass
Seems like we are smoking Stanford-47 Inc and CELG and ASH will establish TRIL as best in class
They need to show better safety profile than Stanford/47 Inc and some signal of efficacy would be optimal. The abstract on Thursday may be lighter .... CEO said more detail at ASH in December. If we get safety and a signal TRIL could really rocket imo....even just better safety would make the best in class case strong and reprice TRIL imo only
Great post !!!!!
specifically what did he say or what do you mean by #3
can you explain what you mean in more detail on these three points? Thank you
$TRIL Stanford article said cd47 safe and seeing pre-clin work translate in clinic !! http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-report/forty-seven
long overdue for news
Great tech....massive potential ..... but TRIL has horrible CEO who does not care about getting the story out or shareholder value imo.........long and strong here
Great post why big pharma has to view TRIL as best case potential. TRIL needs big pharma partner.
yes ....also......we may see a little more at ASCO......Oppenheimer said they expect more updates on higher doses at the ASCO conference.....the abstract was filed a while ago.
great write up thank you ......also shouldn't it be noted that Stanford patients were in advanced solid tumors ?
Stanford is presenting human cd47 data at ASCO from p1
Abstract 3019
A first-in-human, first-in-class phase I trial of the anti-CD47 antibody Hu5F9-G4 in patients with advanced cancers.
Poster Board: #341
Discussed at the Poster Discussion Session on Sunday, June 5, 2016 4:45 PM - 6:00 PM, at Hall B1
Branimir I. Sikic, MD - Presenter
Stanford University School of Medicine
TRIL - Stanford is presenting human cd47 data at ASCO from P1
Abstract 3019
A first-in-human, first-in-class phase I trial of the anti-CD47 antibody Hu5F9-G4 in patients with advanced cancers.
Poster Board: #341
Discussed at the Poster Discussion Session on Sunday, June 5, 2016 4:45 PM - 6:00 PM, at Hall B1
Branimir I. Sikic, MD - Presenter
Stanford University School of Medicine
TRIL cash is higher on FD basis .......if you use fully diluted shares they would take in 31 million in warrant exercises and approx. 8-10 m in option exercises.........125m ish cash fully diluted
fully diluted you also add in 20-23 m cash for warrant redemption.