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.
So Adage sold the same time shorts covered, and around the same amount...coincidence??
Occams Razor...
I wonder if this will be a wake up call to other shorts.
Yes...
He was WRONG about Lombardo, even though he didn't know who would be appointed CEO or in this case, interim CEO. But still WRONG, I agree
Yes he was WRONG about the direction the company would take without DOC. Pursuing clinical trials to completion while trying to raise non-dilutive cash is always an incorrect strategy. He would rather see the company sold.
Yes he was WRONG about DOC screwing up the deal in March....wait....er....what deal was that exactly????
Yes he was WRONG about Lombardo again, even though, again, he didn't know Lombardo's name at the time, or cared if he did. He thought WHOEVER took over would SELL the company, and is oh so disappointed he isn't looking in the rear view mirror yet.
Everyone on the board here is disappointed right not, but not all of us have lost sight of what we have the way he has.
But I am glad you agree how wrong he was about so much.
I agree, I almost forgot.
BUT, you know what I didn't forget? The fact that FBG considered HIMSELF a very large factor in DOC's removal. In fact, he PREDICTED at least a 20% increase in share value if he was removed.
But, here we are, much much lower despite FBG's prediction.
What does that tell everyone?
EasyMM - Go listen to the podcast I mentioned. 2 Docs Talk, Episode 99
If your daughter died of cervical cancer at the age of 40 that could have been prevented with a vaccine, could you forgive yourself for having advised against it?
Two sides to every coin, my friend.
The anti-vax movement is deleterious to the public health. They take stances without looking at the science.
If you want to hear a REAL story about the HPV vaccine go listen to the Podcast "2 Doctor" otherwise know as 2 docs talk.
Episode #99
"Cervical cancer and the HPV Vaccine"
In plain language for those without a medical background.
Not a tabloid, and it even has show notes for those who question what they've heard!!
Simplistic and very very WRONG.
In many, if not most cases of significant drug side effects the mechanism has not been worked out. What they can tell is....'historical data over the last 10 years of using this drug is associated with a higher incidence of this side effect...' THEN they begin looking into why. Simultaneously they'll mine that same data to see if it's more prevalent in one population over another. Is the side effect more or less pronounced in say, diabetics, or those with pre-existing heart disease, or those with immune system dysfuction?? Perhaps we don't see this side effect in some populations....lets look for that.
Again, Terry, you mislead the readers of this board. The TRUTH is you don't know. Neither do I. And neither do the researchers because IT HASN"T BEEN TESTED YET. You're continued insistence that because Herceptin has caused some deaths that ANY product targeting HER2 will ALSO cause some deaths defies even simplistic logic. (Can someone remind me of the name of this logical fallacy? You know the one where a faults of one group is attributed to another group?).
ALSO, even if it is eventually shown that Advaxis's HER2 vaccine does cause some deaths, it's still a Risk vs Benefit equation, you know, the post you STILL haven't responded to yet. Say it's eventually discovered that Advaxis HER2 vaccine will prolong life by 10 years, but you'll die of heart failure because of it. So a woman with late stage cancer is told by her doctor that she has 3 years to live, even with current treatment "but we have this vaccine that will prolong life by 10 years on average..." What do you think she would choose?? What would YOU choose?? Like it or not that's the type of choice many people have to make with various treatments, even today. Some aren't even TOLD about the risks by their doctors, though many are.
Science it Truth, Terry, an attribute you say you aspire to. Will you admit you don't know Terry? Or will you continue to insist anything targeting HER2 is "killer" even if there is no evidence for it??
Risk vs Benefit
I'd like to provide the readers of this board a little insight into how the FDA approves drugs, and how doctors choose whether or not to use them. The basic equation is Risk vs Benefit. This is true of ALL drugs, yes even the ones you buy over the counter that are in your medicine cabinet right now.
Take Tylenol...it can kill, it has killed. Anaphylaxis, a life threatening allergic reaction, can occur with any drug. Used incorrectly any drug can kill. Suicide by Tylenol is a thing - take enough and you die of liver failure in a matter of days. NO DRUG IS ENTIRELY SAFE.
So if no drug is entirely safe, why do we have drugs? The answer is obvious...because they help more people than they harm. The more people they help and the less they harm the more likely a drug is to be approved and used. Sure there are other factors such as cost and whether or not there are other perhaps better and/or safer therapies on the market already.
Terri Hallihan stated in several posts that HER2 vaccine kills patients and in response to my question about a reference to such he points to Herceptin. Sure, there have been deaths with Herceptin, but OVERALL it helps many, many more patients than it harms. So it gets approved and used. Warnings are issued and patients are informed of the risks.
But importantly, the side effects of one drug with a certain mechanism of action does not and never will mean that another drug with an entirely different mechanism of action will have the same side effect profile. Also importantly is the fact that different drugs with the same mechanism of action will have different side effect profiles. And Herceptin and they way Advaxis's HER2 vaccine work have entirely different mechanisms of action. Just because Herceptin causes some morbidity and mortality does not mean that the HER2 construct that Advaxis is selling or licensing will. The side effect profile will be very, very different. Only testing will tell. Testing that hasn't been done yet. But in reading his post you may easily believe that it will. Terri Hallihan is dead wrong about this.
Stay informed, my friends, and educate yourselves.
Terry Hallinan -
In a few of your posts you state that HER2 vaccine kills patients. Since the results of human testing with this construct have not been published (to my knowledge), I'd like to ask where you find your information. Any cited reference will do, preferably in a journal. But sources do matter, I'd likely disregard some conspiracy website.
If you can't provide a reference, can you please explain why you would post these statements??
Remember also, that the patients being treated with Advaxis vaccines are pretty sick, end stage cancer in many cases. Just because a patient dies while on any treatment does not mean the treatment caused the death. That's why we do trials - to look at the benefit to patients in large numbers to see if - overall - they do better with the treatment than without it. In this regard, I'm much more concerned about the data with the CAR-T treatments and the deadly cytokine release syndrome that requires and ICU stay than I am about any stage 1-3 side effect from Advaxis vaccine that I know about.
But you seem to know more....so....Reference please?? (And I'll ask this as politely as possible...Can you please respond in coherent sentences?)
Iggy - I've estimated that if HER2 vaccine work in just a small fraction of cancers where it is over-expressed annual sales will be over a half billion dollars. We already know it works in canine osteosarcoma, a solid tumor, so I have great anticipation for a sale or license of this construct. I'm thinking we should get over 500M with royalties in a license deal, and perhaps much more for an outright sale. But I'm certainly no expert, what do you think?
LOL....you don't understand what I wrote. Go read it, it still pinned.
I said 10% likelihood of success, of that, 50% market share.
That's 5% in my book.
Very conservative.
And we have absolutely NOTHING in common with DNDN. Completely different tech that only added 3-4 months to life at best at an astronomical cost.
The only trials with HER2 with results are the canine osteosarcoma trials, which were successful and should lead to approval later this year.
There was a trial planned that is listed as "not recruiting" for HER2 expressing solid tumors on clinicaltrials.gov. So to my knowledge there haven't been any trials in humans using HER2.
Lombardo seems to be selling or licensing this construct to raise capital for other uses.
I had a thought while reading this. What if the forced selling of our constructs isn't just the result of the manipulation. What if it is the intended effect of it?
Conspiracy theory I know, but it sheds a different light on who may be behind all this manipulation. Instead of some hedge fund, it's some BP.
I disagree. All cancers in my list are ALREADY in clinical trials, though not expressly so. There is currently a trial running looking at HER2 associated solid tumors. Those cancers are the first set in my list.
Breast cancer was carved out separately so I guess you could make a case to subtract that, but then again that alone doesn't negate it's value. I could go on but you would only find some way to further undervalue this stock. You want out and will be HAPPY with 26. So be it. It's emotional. That's you, and you need to admit that to yourself. I and TC are at least trying to see what the REAL value is based on OBJECTIVE criteria.
The REASON we try isn't because we think posting our thoughts here will actually make a difference in events. It's because if they come back and try to sell this company for 1B I will KNOW I'm being screwed, whereas you'll be in HappyLand.
Finally, some reasonable discussion on what Advaxis might be worth in a sale. I too tried to be very conservative, more so than TC. I came up with a figure of around 3B in revenue.
If you're like FBG and wish to poke holes in at least some of my assumptions, then lets discount that figure by 2/3 to 1B. That's revenue. Per year.
Discounts for uncertainty were built in, and most of the world's population that these constructs could treat were left out.
Still, let's discount to 1B in revenue.
Then, per FBG himself, you would have to figure in a multiplier of around 6.
So the company should sell for at least 6B.
Any thoughts of selling Advaxis for 1B should be met with ridicule, according to FBG himself.
I'll let the board weigh in on that one. Guys??
So let us know what you think is conservative FBG. Remember, however, market penetration only kicks in AFTER approval, which would necessarily mandate that the likelihood of success readjusts to 100%.
My estimate is 50% of 10%. So yeah, I do think it's "conservative".
What is Advaxis really worth if sold?
The ongoing argument, I've suggested, needs to be stated in terms of the overall potential of the company. It's makes some sense to gather data on cancers we treat with some guesstimates of likelihood of success and market penetration.
- incidence of cancers our constructs can treat (# of new cases/yr)
- % of those cancers that express the antigens we target (not all do)
- Throw in an uncertainty multiplier (for all cancers NOT far along in clinical development I used a 10% likelihood of success, for the ones further along I used 80%.)
- Throw in a potential market penetration - 50% across the board)
- Throw in what the charge/treatment might be - 50K across the board (personally I think this will be more.)
- Do some math. (Thank goodness for excel!)
These numbers reflect the US and EU only. I think patients in South America will want the treatments if successful, along with China, Russia, etc..... You get my point.
The speadsheet I created is actually much larger, but alas doesn't copy well into this site. I tried my best to make it readable. (If anyone knows how let me know and I'll repost.)
So for S***s and giggles this morning I did just that.
Tumor Type % of Tumors Expressing antigen Total Total w/Antigen Uncertainty Multiplyer Potential Pts Market Penetration Revenue
Bladder 12.4% 203000 25172 0.1 2517 1259 $62,930,000
Gallbladder 9.8% 31700 3107 0.1 311 155 $7,766,500
Uterine 3.0% 204700 6141 0.1 614 307 $15,352,500
Testicular 2.4% 51800 1243 0.1 124 62 $3,108,000
Esophageal 25.0% 51900 12975 0.1 1298 649 $32,437,500
Osteosarcoma 80.0% 3000 2400 0.8 1920 960 $48,000,000
Breast 20.0% 719100 143820 0.1 14382 7191 $359,550,000
Cervical 70.0% 71000 49700 0.8 39760 19880 $994,000,000
Head and Neck 25.0% 145000 36250 0.1 3625 1813 $90,625,000
NSCLC 15.0% 506000 75900 0.1 7590 3795 $189,750,000
Anal 95.0% 21500 20425 0.1 2043 1021 $51,062,500
Prostate Cancer 100.0% 578000 578000 0.1 57800 28900 $1,445,000,000
$3,299,582,000
This estimate does NOT take into account HOT, DUAL, or other patented constructs not in clinical development.
Again, let me repeat, this is a very conservative estimate that anticipates only a 10% likelihood of success and a 50% market penetration of most of these constructs.
As you can see, this very conservative estimate of the potential of Advaxis is over 3B. If you use a multiplier for the sale of 3x it can easily sell for over 9B.
I really, really hope this post helps quiet those who think we should sell for 1B or less. That number is totally, and now irrefutably, ridiculous.
Shameless request for a mod - please pin this.
Perhaps ff..But some here are speculating that the sale of the company will be before PIII completes. If that happens, do you want to be in a position of knowing if the offer is a good deal or not?
Thanks ig. Emotions have been running high lately with the sp the way it is and people constantly repeating the same things and giving valuations based on emotions. I'm just trying to point out there is a better way to look at this. I know nothing is set in stone and that new data or tech can change things overnight. That's just the nature of biotech. But while all on who read this board have absolutely no control over what happens next, we CAN and SHOULD know if we are presented with a raw deal or a good one. This is not an impossible task for us; I've seen some truly amazing DD over the years here.
Based on what assumptions?
This is clearly an emotional response, no better than what some others are posting as to what this company is worth.
Again, lets look at the constructs, look at the diseases they treat, look at what may be charged, do some math.
Add it all together, discount for some degree of uncertainty, come up with a figure.
So the current argument is "What is Advaxis worth if it's sold?" I've challenged the board before to do some math, and had been accused of putting the cart before the horse, even though this is what exactly is required in addressing such a question. It seems to me that some here are speculating not on facts, but rather on "What would I be happy with?" or in short, emotion. Or take full faith in some analysts estimate of what this company will be worth in 1 year or so. Some analyst paid to generate content who most likely doesn't give a rat's a** about accuracy. And said analyst is only giving a figure for what they think it will be worth in one year, not what the company might be worth if sold.
In a previous post I did some math on HER2 in breast cancer in the US, made a few assumptions, and come up with a figure. I estimated around 1B in annual sales in the US alone for breast cancer alone. Which translates to around 1B in annual profits, because it costs next to nothing to manufacture.
Let me do it again for Pediatric Osteosacoma, another HER2 related disease.
In the US there are 400 new cases a year. We know there are no good treatments for this. We also know the Advaxis is effective in dogs with the same disease, the best animal model around, so it's likely to be effective in humans as well. Since there are no other good treatments around, let's up the cost to 100K. 100K x 400 = 40M
OK, not an earth shattering number, but I use this as another example of what this board should be doing. Generating estimates based on facts and reasonable assumptions. Not emotion. Not impatients. I guarantee you if Lombardo et al are in the process of selling Advaxis this is exactly what they're doing. Would you have it any other way?
FBG, Bourbon - Would you have it any other way?? I challenge the both of you - pick a disease, pick a construct, make some assumptions on cost and market penetration, do some math, come up with a figure. The paragraph above took me less than 10 minutes research.
Blue - Did you get the sense that she implied Adage shorted and was covering with the sale?
Bizarro world.....Good news the stock tanks, seemingly bad news the stock soars....go figure.
While I hope this isn't premature, I wanted to take a minute to thank the board in general. The discussion generated here, despite or even because of the disagreements, has helped some here to hold on through these tough times. I realize some of the bad times may not be fully behind us, but I'm more confident now that they will be eventually. "The science has never faltered" was my mantra, but it takes more than that I see, and the education/speculation some have provided as to the financial side truly has helped. So again, thanks all...
What I find interesting in all this mess is that it's happening without anything happening with the science. Oh, sure, mediocre results in the single arm prostate, but no word at all on dual therapy.
I can't bring myself to believe there is insider information being fed to shorts, hedges, tutes, etc. Too much to risk, and orange is not a flattering color.
But, yeah, I can believe the system is rigged in other ways, including entities like Adage shorting their own shares. I was advised, actually, early in this investment, to buy out of the money put options as insurance against my investment. Advice I didn't take but now wish I had, for sure!
Thinking as I type, the timeline is interesting also, isn't it? Lombardo states they are focusing on shareholder value, something all shorts would take seriously. He states HER2 is up for sale or licensing, also a head turner for the shorts. Then without truly significant news on the science, a short attack. To me this stinks to high heaven, and in poker we have a saying: If the bet is intended to get you to call, fold. If the bet is intended to get you to fold, then hold on and call. And it sure looks like they want to get us to fold.
You're explanation can only explain the downward slope of the graph, I believe. The way I remember it the stock rebounded in minutes, if not seconds. There isn't a scenario in the world that would explain this without computer algo's, IMHO.
OK Fbg, why don't you give us YOUR expert opinion as to how to evaluate the worth of HER2? You admit it may be up for licensing or even outright sale, so how SHOULD it be evaluated??
Don't you HAVE to put the cart before the horse in this circumstance??
Hey Easy - I hate to break it to you but Dr Monk cannot be considered "unbiased". If you look at the disclosure in his presentation (I no longer have the link, can someone provide?) you will see he was paid by Advaxis for the assessment.
This is not to say he is wrong, (and I don't believe he is) but being a paid spokesperson for a company is always met with a bit of just skepticism.
I've been off the board all week. Hiking and poker in Colorado. Missed a 14er summit by around a 1/4 mile, but I didn't see anyone else my age up there, and some much younger turned around before I did. Beautiful hike and worth every step.
Anyway, before I left there was talk on the board about how Advaxis would get additional financing without dilution. If this as been discussed already please forgive me. The answer to me seemed pretty obvious because Lombardo actually stated it. Advaxis is going to sell HER2 rights. The question I'd like to ask and discuss it what is this worth? HER2 works in canine osteo and will be licensed shortly (we think). Since the dog model is the best animal model for pediatric osteo, it's likely to be safe and effective there as well. HER2, more importantly I believe, is expressed in a number of breast cancers - about 10-15% actually. There are around 250K new cases of BC in the US each year, so around 25K cases that can be treated with our construct. Lets say a 70% market penetration after a year or two - so around 17K cases we can bill for. Based on some things DOC said years ago I estimated a $70K treatment cost. So this works out to around 1.2B in sales annually. In the US alone. For breast cancer alone.
So, what is HER2 worth?
We should be clamoring for the sale of this construct to calm the waters and provide much needed shareholder value.
LOL...from all the responses I got to my question there is an AWFUL lot of disagreement on this!
Explain it like I'm 5...please?
Ok, I'm not a finance guy, medical is my field.
So can someone explain to me how this short attack, if that's what it is, is enabling shorts to cover?
If shorts cover, wouldn't the sp go UP? It's totally counter-intuitive to me to think that shorts are covering right now.
I get the idea that perhaps they are establishing a "base" from which to recover, if that's so then the "covering" hasn't started yet, has it? I mean, really, we're not talking about a few hundred thousand shares, we're talking 10 million shares. Is it theoretically possible to cover this many shares, this large percentage of all shares, without raising the share price?
Thanks Joche - Like I said, I hoped I was wrong. Still wonder however why the 'reviewed the data' part was in the 10-q but not the PR. Didn't seem like a good sign to me.
Sorry about the confusion....but it begs another question...
Should Advaxis have included that language in the PR? Why didn't they? Are they trying to hide that fact or was it an oversight?
Considering this wasn't a cut and paste job, one can only conclude it was left out deliberately.
Warrant premium is about $2.50. I've never seen it this high.
Check the 10-q
OMG...
Here's what to do....open the file, Hit Ctrl+f on your keyboard, search for
"evaluated the data".
That should work for you.
Only for you FBG - please re-read it yourself. Here is the paragraph, again, that's under item 2:
ADXS-HER2 is an Lm –based antigen delivery product designed to target HER2 expressing solid tumors including human and canine osteosarcoma. The dose finding phase of the trial is complete. The Company has evaluated the data and decided not to proceed to the expansion phase of the trial. In addition, based on the Company’s priorities, the ADXS-HER2 development program, which includes Pediatric Osteosarcoma, will be discontinued but remains open to investigator-initiated research or licensing proposals.
Now be nice and say you're sorry.....
Blue -It's hard, or impossible actually, for me to disagree with anything you said.
- HER2 wasn't very developed
- HER2 was going to be a major cash burn
- Advaxis can't afford another cash burn without dilution or income which isn't on the horizon
However, the sentence in the PR speaks for itself. They said they looked at the data, looked at the companies priorities, then killed the trial.
If the data supported further investigation, why include the fact that they looked at the data? Why not just say "because of company priorities...." or something similar? To me they were sending a signal. And IF they WERE sending a signal then HER2 is going to be VERY difficult to sell.
Again, I hope you ARE correct, and we can and do license this construct. Time will tell.
Here's the entire paragraph. It's under item 2.
ADXS-HER2 is an Lm –based antigen delivery product designed to target HER2 expressing solid tumors including human and canine osteosarcoma. The dose finding phase of the trial is complete. The Company has evaluated the data and decided not to proceed to the expansion phase of the trial. In addition, based on the Company’s priorities, the ADXS-HER2 development program, which includes Pediatric Osteosarcoma, will be discontinued but remains open to investigator-initiated research or licensing proposals.
Emphasis mine. All trials with HER2 were halted. I'm not sure how many there were. When I have time I'll check clinicaltrials.gov and get back to you.
I really hope I'm wrong about this. But the PR seemed to me to indicate they killed the trial because the data didn't support continuing.
IF they ever publish (highly unlikely), or even make available (also highly unlikely), this data, we'll know for sure.
I'm aware of all they had planned for HER2. This is, after all, the construct pending approval in canine osteo.
I'm not above conspiracy-speculating, so how's this:
some tute or two were shorting themselves and needed a way out, so Advaxis cans DOC, then decides to kill a trial, opening the door for the tutes to drop the sp where they can cover cheaper. But the trial actually had indications of success and Advaxis is able to sell it, banking enough to avoid further dilution till axal gets approved in the EU.
I think this would only work if Lombardo likes both the color orange and flip-flops.
Hmmm, interesting thesis. Except.....in the PR they stated they "looked at the data"...then decided to kill the trial.
One can only hope that the data was good and they decided to kill the trial in order to sell....but then why kill the trial in the first place? Why not just sell? I can't see halting a successful trial..that's too much of a reach for even the most conspiracy minded among us.
The implication is clear to me...trial data, thus far, indicated a degree of futility, enough to justify killing the trial.
I HOPE you're correct, Blue, I really really do. But I think for this board to be helpful we must be honest about what we see.