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.
Eyebuystox,
I hope you are right but, the partnering statements are nothing new and what makes you think he'll look like a fool if there isn't a partner by then? I think any reasonable investor knows that inking partnership deals is not an overnight cut and dried process (at least according to all the input provided on this board by people who claim to have been participants in such processes).
Although I didn't say it in my post (mainly because I lost track of my thought processes as the post got too long), I do believe that one of the reasons they may also have delayed the meeting, other than allowing time for the 1st line data, was to allow time to seal the deal with a partner. This would allow them to go to the meeting with the partner just as they said they wanted to all along.
Its a good point and I wish I had remembered to put it in the post.
aikifredicist,
I would expect, like all monstrous and bloated bureaucratic organizations, that there are plenty of places to make the cuts in the FDA other than from a department that actually handles real day to day life effecting/impacting issues. At least I would HOPE that to be the case. Does that make me a HO too? (Hopium Obsessed).
RCJ,
Thanks. I very much hope I get a response. exwannabe seems to me to be very versed in these matters and I believe we need to be challenged in our beliefs by people who know this stuff. I have put a lot of money into Peregrine over the years and I need to know if the information that I am currently using as the foundation to continue investing in Peregrine is valid or not.
We obviously are having a credibility problem with the biotech retail market. I'm not versed enough or equipped with information sources to allow me to know whether the "smart" money is buying in while we are declining or if its just market makers absorbing the blow (as is their job) and churning the stock with the day traders on the way down.
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories (not saying I don't do my share of wondering about who is playing us or messing with us) but after seeing yesterday that someone posted on Team Inspire on 2-6-13 the AF article, from right after the Sept 24 coding errors were announced, its got to get one wondering. See this link:
http://www.inspire.com/groups/lung-cancer-survivors/discussion/on-different-trials-and-such/
After all this time, why would someone post that info on Team Inspire just coincidentally prior to the PC and 2nd line NSCLC trial info was being released? Seems too much of a coincidence to me. Smacks of someone putting pressure on Peregrine not to think about going it alone in the PIII trial business by poisoning the waters so to speak with the lung cancer patient community because they have a credibility problem.
Peregrine is in a tough situation and the BPs know it. Long retail stockholders are also in a tough position -again- because Peregrine has to keep funding operations.
I do believe that the with the 2nd line NSCLC and PC trials over and the 1st line winding down to the finish, that the expenditures on trials is greatly reduced for the near term thus reducing the cash burn rate and Avid business is doing very well to help with operating costs.
However, I still believe we are getting close to the point very soon (next couple of months) where we need to refill the coffers to keep a minimum of 1 year operating funds available.
I believe our share price reflects the mood of the BP decision makers regarding the data otherwise I believe the positive feelings from these decision makers would be reflected somewhere in pricing or options volume (drastically increased options volume).
Peregrine has said they don't believe that they'll have a meeting with the FDA until mid year. With only a 60 day advance notice required to set up that meeting that means to me that they haven't made the meeting request yet. Mid year to me means June/July (p value of .7; that's a joke just in case someone didn't take it that way). I know that some of you are going to say mid year could mean April or May, but I'll stick with the literal interpretation for now.
That's way beyond the 60 days SK has previously stated that it would take to arrange such a meeting especially when they could have made the call to set it up a couple of weeks ago at least.
In my opinion they are waiting on the 1st line NSCLC data timeline to firm up so they can arrange to have that data with them at the meeting. Good strategy for Peregrine and Bavi but bad stately for share price in the near term.
All this means to me that we are risking a no news period here for a couple of months in which time the very real possibility exists of having to announce the ATM is being used at the next CC to continue to fund operations. This very possible scenario certainly is not helping our share price. I understand there can be some surprises like a good Cotara deal announcement or some exciting IST trial data, etc... but that is a big unknown and will be reflected as big risk in the share price IMO.
However, if one is truly a believer in the validity of the Peregrine data (you have faith that we are not being hoodwinked by the PPHM board members) then these next 2-3 months are probably going to be the last chance to acquire stock at fire sale prices.
If Bavi is the real thing (like Coke), then after the FDA gives PIII go ahead I believe the stock should solidly stay above 3 dollars (absolute minimum without a partnership based on recent pricing) until PIII news starts rolling in.
exwannabe,
You appear to me to be a very knowledgeable person with regards to drug trials and the associated statistical methods and because you are willing to share that knowledge with us (for which I am grateful; no joking here) I would like to get more in depth with you regarding your statement about the 6 patients who "vanished" in the first few months.
You have stated that if they had actually died there would be no OS benefit.
It is my understanding that these patients left the treatment process early (for what could be a myriad of reasons, including death) and were unable to complete the treatment regimen and therefore were "censored" by an independent board of physicians trained, licensed and specializing in determining "censor" status for studies like this. I'll be calling them the censoring board for this discussion if you don't mind.
Would not the censoring board make the determination that these patients did not participate in enough treatment cycles for their data to be relevant to the study?
Wouldn't it be expected in a trial for a severe disease like 2nd line NSCLC that there would be some patients so far gone by the time they started this last ditch treatment that they would be expected to expire very early on in the treatment cycles that it would be appropriate to not count them as part of the trial data?
Would it not also be expected that people change their mind and decide they don't want to continue with anymore treatment due to side effects of chemo and live out their remaining days w/o having to suffer the effects of the treatment along with the disease effects?
Isn't this censoring process part of all trials with guidance provided by the FDA on how to censor?
Also, and what I believe is very important, in the case of a double blinded trial like Peregrine's 2nd line NSCLC trial, it is my understanding that Peregrine personnel have absolutely no say in the censoring process and this process is completely in the hands of a licensed group of physicians contracted to make these determinations. Is this correct or am I missing something here?
Having said all this, it is my understanding that these 6 patients that were censored were part of a standard trial process that all trials use and this process was out of the hands of Peregrine, so why do you keep bringing this up?
It may be my imagination but, it seems that you are trying to project a thought process that there is something very out of the ordinary and very suspicious here with the 3mg arm data relative to these censored patients.
You have on more than one occasion brought up this point about these early censored patients so that is why I'm trying to get more info from you on this point.
Do you have more information that could be helpful in understanding why we should be suspicious of this data; why should we believe that Peregrine's data should be considered to have been generated from a "rigged" process that is not representative of processes sanctioned and recognized as appropriate by the FDA?
This isn't a trap and I'm not trying to catch you in anything. You appear to me to be very well informed in these matters and I would like to get your in depth input on this issue as I believe it is extremely important to have "faith" in this 3mg arm data as it is the foundation of my position in this company. I too like to see all views too when they are not obvious and constant bashing.
Thanks in advance for your time and input on this issue.
entdoc,
I wrote to Chris Keenan asking what was meant by the "disconnect" statement.
Here is my question (edited for privacy):
According to the transcript of the 12-10-12 conference call Mr. King made the following statement:
“All along, of course, the Front-Line data & Pancreatic data have been sort of looming out there and obviously, over time, will mature. As far as the trigger points for those data points, these are event-driven endpoints, and it's good for patients the longer they go out. Having said that, when we do reach what we think is a good solid result from the studies, and we will be in a position to put those out as they become available, and, obviously, there will likely be a disconnect between those 2 particular clinical results.”
I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me with exactly what type of “disconnect” Mr. King was referring to. I believe this information to be very important to evaluating the information being provided to shareholders.
And here is his response:
Timing of readout from the trials. As these are two different diseases, patients within these groups live different durations following diagnosis.
Chris Keenan | Senior Director, Investor Relations
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
14282 Franklin Avenue - Tustin, CA - 92780
Tel: 714.508.6046 | Corporate: | Fax:
ckeenan@peregrineinc.com | http://www.peregrineinc.com
Loof,
Sorry I'm late with this estimate. I had to wait until I could get advice from the professional Biotech Investor advisers DDAF Advisors, Inc. Attached is a recording of the conference they held to provide me with the most reliable estimate based on their latest analytical techniques. Here is a link to the conference:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=voodoo+chicken+bones+and+blood+ritual+youtube&view=detail&mid=7F0E914EAFF88512A87B7F0E914EAFF88512A87B&first=0&qpvt=voodoo+chicken+bones+and+blood+ritual+youtube
The resulting estimate provide to me was:
Partnering date: 9-13-13
Opening Price: 13.13 dollars
Price rise during the day: 13.13 dollars
Closing Price: 26.26
Partnering Firm:Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (13th largest market cap pharmaceutical).
A nice tidbit. When you go to the ScottTrade Biotech research site and look at the first web page for the Biotech sector list of all 639 companies this is the lead in header for the research page:
Biotechnology & Drugs Industry
Over the last four weeks activity has been led by the Peregrine Pharmaceuticals and AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. companies, up 97.56% and 41.99% respectively. In contrast, the Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. companies have shown the worst price performance over the same period, down -18.02% and -17.72% respectively
WH,
I'm glad you posted this. I have had a lot of thoughts similar to yours today. If I might add a little.
It seems to me that one of the more significant purposes of having a control group is to assist in the removal of biases in treatment assignments and in treatment locations (skill of the craft so to speak and genetic/ethnic populations etc...).
It is my take away from the PR today and all the other news since Sept 24 is that this bias removal purpose of the control group has not been defeated/pierced/rendered useless - it is still intact and of great benefit. Pooling the control and 1 mg arms into a single control group allows the 3 mg arm to be a clean trial treatment group whose results should easily be compared to historical MOS data for the SOC used.
As far as using a control group to establish a "current" MOS for SOC I would think that after having used the SOC in numerous other trials (whose results have been posted here on the board several times) the importance and usefulness of the control group for this purpose (establishing current SOC MOS) would be diminished, and diminished to an extent proportional to the number of trials and number of patients in those trials using the SOC that we have used.
I don't see how the FDA can ignore the realigned trial data when the control group is "clean" for its very important purpose of reducing biases and we still have a "clean" trial group for the 3 mg and the industry has significant historical SOC trial data for 2nd line NSCLC control groups.
I can't see how the FDA could justify ignoring this data especially in this era of trying very hard to improve their ability to get new and improved and proven therapies approved. Especially when the trial data is such a significant improvement over historical SOC numbers. They have to take this data seriously in support of PIII.
Loof,
I don't see any tax stamps on those bottles. Are they filled with apple cider?
I hope Peregrine tells us the results of the 2nd line NSCLC trial data reconstitution effort before midnight tonight. I would really like to know before the world ends tomorrow.
Exwannabe,
I understand now that you were trying to make a point.
FTM,
Thank you for this info. Again, I'm very glad you are a member of this board with your ability and constant willingness to provide us with the relevant information so quickly and accurately.
Bravo Zulu!
Ex,
Please explain the source of the MOS number you posted. This link is the official Merck release and it doesn't have any numbers in it.
http://www.merckgroup.com/en/media/extNewsDetail.html?newsId=EB4A46A2AC4A52E7C1257AD9001F3186&newsType=1
Thanks.
Sunstar,
Sunstar I'm not sure what is meant by the "survival" number that the article is referring to. Is it a MOS number? or a long term survival number for a certain percentage of the treatment population. I'm assuming by the magnitude of the number and the interest it's generating that it is a MOS number. If so from my current LIMITED research into Pancreatic cancer trials and current SOC, a MOS of 8 months would be a significant improvement (percentage wise) over the SOC MOS of ~6 months.
I believe we have a new benchmark against which we will be compared. Let's hope our numbers are better than 8 months which of course its looking like that we MAY VERY WELL BE based on the trial timeline and not yet having an event notification for MOS. But, if the trial was heavily enrolled past the trial enrollment period midpoint then we may be close; of course I believe that scenario has an extremely low probability. I believe we have an extremely good chance to beat NP+G numbers and that's why they are sweating it and trying to get to market first and why there is news blitz for them on their trial numbers. If Bavi comes out with 10 mos or better (which is what I believe we are tracking to) then NP+G may lose its traction overnight.
Sunstar,
The way I read your post regarding the pancreatic trial you provided the link to was the trial was a combo therapy trial based on the statement in your post "(NP) + Gem, Phase 2 pancreatic trial, OS: 7.3 months".
When I read the link it appears to me that it was only a monotherapy trial that tested only nab-paclitaxel (NP) for patients who had progressed after being treated with gemcitabine (G).
From the abstract:
"This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of NP monotherapy in patients who progress on G-based therapy. "
Just trying to keep tht trial in proper perspective.
FTM,
How about some prevailing "in-the-box" thinking: Obama has the PPHM pipeline seized via eminent domain powers, pays the current "fair" market value (as reflected by our current stock price) plus 20% (what more could the greedy capitalists want?) and touts how he has greatly reduced health care costs while at the same time greatly increasing the effectiveness of health care treatments.
Hope I didn't plant a thought in one of those thieves' brains.
Thanks Wook,
I will have another look at the info to make sure I keep it straight.
Keep up the good works.
Wook,
I was thinking the same thing last night when I read the info. But upon further scrutiny it looks like the original info may have been in error regarding estimated time. The way I read the before and after info was that the treatment regimen was, and still is, 8 - 3 week cycles; for a total of 24 weeks. I wrote it off to the previous information being in error. If I am wrong on this interpretation I would appreciate it if someone would set me straight.
Vol,
I can only assume it is because he wants to provide the most accurate information possible to his adoring public.
DD,
I disagree. I was one of those who voiced the opinion that they were probably implementing a delaying action until the unaffected ongoing trials developed their MOS data - which are still on course for generating very good news (I'm sure with your history you will be unable to agree with that assessment regarding the upcoming trial information).
They didn't have to stick their necks out like they did with their new statements regarding the status of the 2nd line NSCLC trial but they chose to and I appreciate the effort and understand the limitations on being able to provide more details. I'll admit they didn't stick their necks out far but IMO it was certainly more than they had to, especially considering that it is providing unnecessary ammo for those that may proceed with legal actions against PPHM regarding the trial data.
They have great revenues out of Avid, Cotara PIII trial design approval from the FDA (for an orphan drug that has legal non-compete protection if it pans out), operating capital for a year, with reduction in burn rates due to in-progress trial expenses winding down (for now) with relatively short term - within 3 months - expected trial news that based on dates is expected by many here to be very positive. The same type of date analysis that was done on this board for the 2nd line NSCLC trials that turned out to be fairly accurate and had you and AF actually starting to sweat until the coding discrepancies arose. Luckily those coding issues came along to give you and people like AF a lifeline to latch onto to save your reputations from those very embarrassing postings regarding the ineffectiveness of Bavi. We note the drug hasn't been stated to be a failure and we also note that you chose to use the coding errors as justification of your position that Bavi is a failure. Do you really expect that kind of logic to make sense to most people?
Most people here don't expect you to discuss this stock with what we believe is an unbiased view. We have your published history vs. the performance of the drugs to base our view on.
I have recently viewed a video of Cramer clearly spelling out his beliefs and ethics for the Street.com people on how to do business when a company's stock price is going against his investment position.
If you haven't seen the video here is the link. You may want to view it if you haven't already:
CO,
I thought it was a great game too. Army fought hard and almost broke the spell.
Regarding the big companies and how they play the games to protect their bottom lines; I know it happens (just have to listen to the news) and its all about the money. I like to believe the doctors are mostly in it to help people and I know they are trapped in this process which requires everyone to be associated with an entity that has the resources (money, marketing clout, political connections, etc...)to get their work produced, tested, approved and distributed to the people who need it.
Our company is in that same boat. I believe that we truly need a deep pocket partner to get anywhere with our pipeline. I've never understood why people think that Roche is the perfect fit especially after they spent all the mega-money on Genentech. They have so much sunk cost into the APPOVED Avastin platform that I never thought it was in their best interest to see that Bavi was brought to market in an expeditious manner. It always seemed to me that Roche would want to at least control Bavi, not necessary develop it, until there was an overriding need to have it replace Avastin. Its going to be a number of years yet before Avastin goes off patent protection and I'm sure Roche doesn't want to replace their number 1 VERY EXPENSIVELY obtained product until they've milked it for all its worth. If Bavi works as well as it has been proving to during the different trials and if we get the outstanding MOS numbers for Pancreatic and NSLC then I believe Bavi threatens Avastin's market share and Roches bottom line BIGTIME. I don't think Roche can afford Bavi outright (I think they are in way too deep with the Genentech deal) and I also don't think they can afford not to at least control how and when Bavi comes to market.
For awhile now I've been seeing Roche, via Genentech connections, as being a Fox in our hen house. I know that a lot of people here think Roche is the logical choice as our deep pockets partner and my position is heresy but its how I see the situation. Your story about Lily and AMLN prompted me to put my opinion in writing. Steve K and Eric S better be on their toes regarding Foxes. I also hope we don't have a Fox on our small little BOD.
Co3aii,
I was fairly certain I was going to have my ID meaning cracked when I wrote that post. No, I'm not a USNA ring knocker. My father was enlisted Navy and I was born and raised in the Navy and I enlisted in the Navy for a few wonderful adventurous years - just like they promised. I was raised on Beat Army and can't let the Beat Navy go unchallenged. Just shows how much childhood conditioning actually works.
I used to try and give AF credit for actually believing what he said (in the interest of having an open mind to force me to look at all sides of my investment in PPHM) but after seeing that video from the link posted by eb0783 (Thanks eb0783!), that will never happen again. My wife used to like watching Cramer, but after I provided her the information from that video, she'll never watch him again and I'm sure her friends are already informed too.
Having the FDA approval for Cotara PIII trials is obviously a positive but I don't see us getting a significant PPS pop from this news until we get a partner deal consummated.
I think there are too many people invested in Peregrine that are fully aware of our financial situation and who believe (like I do) that there is no way that we can advance Cotara to PIII on our own without a partner or without serious dilution of the stock. We also have the added burden of getting past the efforts of the street.com to put the worst light on anything Peregrine when positive news is announced. I wish everyone in the street.com the worst of luck in their business and personal lives after seeing that video.
It would be nice if that video showed up on every board right after AF posted to let the people know the morality and philosophy of the organization he represents when they post his articles.
Geo,
There's always the chance of any of the scenarios IMO. There must be a Schrodinger wave function for Bavi's 2nd line NSLC data and I wish I knew it.
I'm just going to sit back and hold on until the very bright (or bitter) end. FYI - if I did have a wave function equation for all of Bavi's trials' data then the "bitter end" solution would most definitely have the lowest possible probability (I think).
I made a decision to trade PPHM with a very small amount of money that I normally would have bought and held with. Its keeping me occupied and actually has me somewhat less disappointed when the price is falling because I have a goal to round off my holdings to a specific number. Its allowing me to have some short term successes to boost my spirits while the larger chunk of the investment is altitudenly (my new word) challenged. I figured I should try and put some of this long term watching, reading and waiting knowledge of PPHM to some use.
I'm hoping they surprise the heck out of us with great news on Monday but its just a hope. I'm most anticipating the pancreatic trial results along with, of course, supporting great info on the other trials.
CP,,
After reading that post I need to get some Dramamine and I need to send you some tin-foil so you can make a hat and maybe a full body suit. .
To be honest I started writing a similar tome on the subject of the 12-5 Shan no presentation and the recent other news (job postings and Cotara) but after I got to about the 20 paragraphs I realized I needed to go looking for the tin-foil for myself.
In the end I've boiled it down to this; they either don't have the 2nd line NSCLC data resolved but they still think it can be and are working diligently on it OR they know its never going to be able to support/produce any positive news announcement(s) and are implementing a delaying action until we can get the other trials' positive news. I'm betting on the latter because IMO they have had plenty of time to go through the data and test/sample all the returned drug containers involved and to research and understand the 3rd party vendor processes involved (that statement about understanding the 3rd party vendor's processes still gives me heartburn because they should have understood them going in - refer back to my posts on my position re: prudent QA audits before contracting with vendors for such a company survival critical service).
It certainly seems like all the cards are again lining up for very positive news for these other trials based on time since trial enrollment completion without announcement of data. I'm ok with having to wait for this news to get things popping again, not thrilled with having yet to wait another "several months" in the future for a significant event but I'm resolved to the fact that its probably the only very positive scenario in the near term that will again drive the pps to new heights.
I don't believe they have a Cotara partner lined up based on my reading of the PR. Again its obvious that everyone can have very different views on the same news. I'm certainly hoping to have to eat my words on this but we'll just see how it plays out.
I also don't see how we have a snowball's chance in West Point (that's for you Army guys :), GO NAVY, BEAT army!!!)in handling the Cotara trials on our own. We barely have enough to fund our year to year operations with the current ongoing trials and day to day operational load let alone support the start-up and performance of an international drug trial that requires neurosurgeons and operating teams and all the pre op work ups and post operative treatments for each Cotara treatment. I know its only a one time treatment but how much more must it cost to perform this one-time treatment than a (relatively) more simple IV procedure. I've never seen the cost data to develop a comparison and this is just an intuitive position.
All of course IMHO. eom
Good Luck
co3aii,
Bavituximab-Peregrine.
Thought you might need to come back to reality via a refresher course in history:
Year Winner Score
2002 Navy 58–12
2003 Navy 34–6
2004 Navy 42–13
2005 Navy 42–23
2006 Navy 26–14
2007 Navy 38–3
2008 Navy 34–0
2009 Navy 17–3
2010 Navy 31–17
2011 Navy 27–21
2012 Navy GTKAA
2013 Navy GTKAA
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
md,
What I find more interesting is that Thorpe is going to present (apparently no matter if there is or isn't any public update on the 2nd line trial data by Dec 5) that:
Thanks CP for your respones.
CP,
You stated:
KP,
Just a thought about your statement on trial arm size of 40 being statistically significant. I believe the data that was characterized as statistically significant was the combined data from the 2 trial arms therefore the trial size would have been 80 not 40. If I'm wrong then sorry about that.
FF,
I'm thinking, based on the info revenue monster posted a couple days ago that J Shan is still scheduled for the Dec. 5 presentation and will present if the 2nd line trial issue is resolved (Don't know why that post was deleted but it sounded credible to me) that Peregrine is keeping their options open and must feel there is a chance to have resolution by Dec 5. If they kept their options open for the presentation I'm thinking they may have kept their options open with the FDA and the Dec meeting they wanted to have before this mess happened. Meaning that they probably didn't cancel the meeting and if they have a resolution by 12-5 they would still be on track to have the EOP II meeting in Dec. Might just be wishful thinking but why wouldn't they keep the option open until they were absolutely sure there was no benefit to have the meeting. I don't ever remember that they said they canceled any meetings with the FDA; for that matter I don't ever remember them stating when they have specific scheduled dates for meetings with the FDA.
Koman,
Review this link and see what you think.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2011/08/t-cells/
EyeBuy,
I have to disagree with you on those points. I do believe BPs will not ignore the data for these other trials and will prompt them to continue the deal making process.
BPs are not the ignorant investment community at large. If the screw up was indeed due to a 3rd party screw up and we do actually have a significant number of long term survivals occurring (still find that fact very hard to fake) then I cannot see how a knowledgeable BP would ignore the information from other uncontaminated trials. Doesn't make sense to me that they would ignore positive randomized trial data.
The vast majority of Phase 2 trials are of the type we are using for front line NSCLC and for the pancreatic cancer trial (not to mention all the other IST data just waiting to provide a surprise). Also, IMO, these trials carry much less risk of hidden gotchas like the double blind trials have because a company is not at the mercy of other companies' performance. I guess this also means I don't agree with your statement:
Carboat,
I pretty much agree with your statements and I find your posts pretty much a common sense approach to what's going on at this time.
However, with respect, there is one thing in your post I'm responding to that I do disagree with and I think it is the most important part of your post.
You stated:
Entdoc,
No problem/no big deal. In the end it got me to listen to the broadcast again. I completely understand how things can get jumbled re: this info. Even listening to a recording the info was going pretty fast for my brain to analyze on the fly and for me to take notes even knowing what to expect and listen for. I had the convenience of being able to keep repeating the info. It would be very difficult with the raw live presentation.
Entdoc,
Your posted:
Loof,
I don't understand what you're bitchin about.
When you first showed up on this board you wernt nuffin but a backwoods unsufistakate. You lived in a beat up, run down POS shack (at least by Yankee standards) that needed paint, new windows and a roof.
Since you've been here its like you've gotten a brand spankin new house with with that new paint and fancy windows you can open (probably even have screens in them windows) and a roof made out of real asphalt shingles instead road signs and scap wood. Hell, you even got a brand new home for the misses mom.
You became a rocket scientist, a launch director, successful space travel ontree-p-newer and bookie. Also, it appears the Loofman distillery has has increased its market penetration astronomically at the same time providing you with extra rheumatiz medicine. And to top it all off in the good luck category, it looks like you mom in law may be forced to move away now that her house is burning down.
So stop the bithchin please :):)
Seriously though, I'm still invested and I do think the world will have to take seriously any good trial results from the other NSCLC, Pancreatic and IST trials. "Truth will out" as is said. There will be a credibility gap to be closed with the market at large, but I just can't see any BP passing this up if uncontested trials keep indicating that Bavi is as good as we have all believed in the past. What the BPs do the market WILL follow.
The only decision I see here now is to determine if you really believe in the science of Bavi or not because in a few short months we are either going to get what I believe is the last chance to make this drug fly or we've missed the last chance to salvage anything of value from our investments.
I've chosen to stay. It may be the last big mistake or the best hard decision I've ever made in investments. Hate what has happened but bottom line here is that nothing has been presented to override the information of how well Bavi works as indicated in all the previous lung cancer and breast cancer trials.
Hang in there Loof; I am.
entdoc,
Thank you for that clarification and thank you for your time and effort to attend the meeting. Being able to look someone in the eye and to provided us with first hand non-broadcast info is very helpful.
Thanks for that info Dia.