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.
Thanks CJ,
A question. You say
Merci Danny,
I actually agree with most of what you say!
Yeah! the cc will be interesting!
cheers
Sorry but I don't trust Ronin!
My basic thoughts right now are that just because the current BoD stinks (salaries wise, efficiency wise, etc.) that does NOT necessarily make Ronin the best option for us shareholders.
I also find Ronin’s letter opportunistic and populist. I mean it clearly takes advantage of our current emotional state… BUT, ignores the current activities with MSK and NCCS. This is a gross mistake, the Wolchok’s ASCO paper about melanoma cannot be ignored so lightly… as to directly dump Bavi.
The thing is that not acknowledging these facts makes me strongly believe Ronin has an agenda not aligned with my interests to benefit as much as possible from the PPer potential. So, definitely I don’t trust Ronin…
And yeah! somebody can say: and what can be expected from the current strategy? Good point! So SK: it is time to speak out or shut up for ever. And new (intelligent) blood in the BoD is urgently needed
All in my opinion
Joe6P, I dont follow your reasoning...
Ronin is not a longtime SH, they have just arrived and I dont think they are here for the quick buck. So I dont think they were just reacting because the BoD rejected a partnering deal.
That would be the normal reaction of retailers like you and me. But in my opinion they are here for a more ambitious goal than just the exosome partnering deal.
I just need to see they are not a wolf on sheep clothes, so help me G! LOL
Agreed! The current BoD is a greedy and incompetent bunch of individuals. Add to this that they are not friendly to shareholders and voila! Ronin has open doors to the Board, once shareholders get organized.
Now my question is: Is Ronin a NPO or a human benefactor? I dont think so.
In their seductive letter they pretend to be fellow suffering shareholders but when they came on board was recently enough not to have endured even a cold.
I keep thinking the effort they are making for some manufacturing facilities is not reasonable. There is got to be something else.
Their comptent about Bavi I find it cynical.
Their plan to bring value selling the IP I find it very telling of what there is behind their real intentions.
In summary:
Am I happy they are in?: YES
Do I trust Ronin?: No, as in principle I dont trust any company and specially those that portray themselves as saviors
My wishfulthinking?: They change the BoD, they bring in new blood, but they are NOT in control of the company
<<Interesting times ahead, and hopefully the science keeps moving forward during all this. >>
While the current situation (careless dilution, lack of info to sh, lack of visible business plan, etc) was unbearable and therefore any changes or new path is warmly welcome, however it does concern me that the letter practically throws bavi to the gutter and barely mentions the possible value of the IP.
I am sure that most of us shareholders are here because of the hope that the PPS platform could bring forth. So with AVID alone, sure we would be profitable but it is not what we (I) were looking for.
On the other hand it is hard for me to believe that the huge effort Ronin is making (being making) is just to get hold of some manufacturing facilities. So either their ratio effort / goal is disproportionate or they are hiding something which would make them cynical and dangerous to our interests as shareholders.
time will tell
glta
Hey Golfho, finally I got a break from this dull drowsiness, great to hear from you….
Thaks MH, great post!
Thanks so much CJ, not just only for this reply but for all the great work you have done and continous doing here.
Excuse my ignorance, but aren't exosomes biomarkers themselves?
Review Article
Exosomes: Novel Biomarkers for Clinical Diagnosis
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2015/657086/
I wonder if there is any chance that exosomes were also included in the Sunrise biomarkers analysis you mention.
I am aware that the comment from PPHM implies they were having in mind another goal, but those comments are dated on October 2016 and at that time maybe the exosomes potential was not in their mind yet. However, the question is: were exosomes biomarkers important enough to be considered in those tests.
Because, if for whatever reason exosomes tests were performed by the Labs involved in Sunrise then the data would already be there...
It is just a matter of whether exosomes were also checked by the Labs or not. I will try to find out if they were.
A question. I was told by a Hospital involved in Sunrise that the samples from Sunrise patients in Europe were taken to a lab in Switzerland to be checked and tested. I assume that a similar process took place for the rest of the world.
So these labs are taking their time (too long for my test and patience) checking different types of tests and bringing up some conclusions. I am taking for granted that one of those tests was the one for exosomes.
Now, all Sunrise patients had cancer regardless they were treated with Bavi or not, and around 500 is a pretty big statistical number to prove to the FDA the accuracy of their “exosome test”.
Coming back to my question, since Sunrise followed all the FDA procedures and though the goal for Sunrise was different than detecting cancer, can the FDA approve such a test for detecting cancer (lung cancer to begin with) with the data provided from the Sunrise Project?
It is 7 months from here. Many things may happen.
Abstract Submission Deadline:
31 July 2017
Anyway, a good opportunity to listen to Dr. Wolchok
Mickey, I agree with you that IoT in itself is a real gold mine for the company. Just reading the projections that others in the sector give for IoT gives IDCC a super bright future.
And your comments about the Street etc... well, aren't we already used to stock manipulation and other disgusting tactics so common in wall street?
Glad to see you back
cheers
Fron SeekingAlpha: Skip The Internet Of Things ETF And Buy This One IoT Stock Instead
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4037078-skip-internet-things-etf-buy-one-iot-stock-instead?auth_param=42k1t:1c7pvm7:8c1a9198c2ea18e6fb590b221dce85da&uprof=45
Summary
SNSR started trading in Sept 2016 and is the only ETF targeting the internet-connected world, IoT.
The underlying holdings are a mish mash of products from different sectors, including conglomerates and large technology companies that don't focus on connectivity. SNSR isn't a pure emerging technology play.
The performance of SNSR has been very similar to XLK, a broad technology ETF. So why buy SNSR?
Instead, buy a connectivity stock with great fundamentals that will likely participate in the growth of wireless connectivity.
Global X Internet of Things Thematic ETF (NASDAQ:SNSR) started trading in September 2016 and is the only ETF targeting the internet-connected world. The ETF is off to a reasonably good start as shown in the stock chart below.
SNSR stock chart from inception
The ETF invests in stocks of companies operating in the Internet of Things "sector", including companies that provide services, solutions and/or products related to the development of connected devices and the internet of things "industries."
I borrowed the above paragraph from a financial site that was describing the Global X ETF. I put quotes around "sector" and "industry" to emphasize that IoT is considered an industry or sector, when in reality it is in fact not either.
Before I go any further with this article, I have to confess that I have a personal bias against Internet of Things (IoT). In my opinion, it is not an industry, sector or emerging technology of any sort, but an ill-defined, sensationalistic marketing scheme, with outrageous predictions regarding its future.
There are claims of 6 billion currently deployed devices, growing to 20 billion in a few years. The problem with this entire theme is that every wireless device and any device that could conceivably be connected indirectly to the internet is considered IoT.
For example, if you own a Fitbit, and you can download your heart rate to a computer that could connect to the internet, then the Fitbit is IoT. Another example, the RFID devices that are embedded into product packaging, a practice done for the last 20 years, is IoT. Your electronic components that have a Bluetooth interface are IoT. Drones, autonomous vehicles and wearables are all considered IoT. The problem with IoT is that the ability to connect to the internet is a feature for most products, not a reason for being. In many cases, an Internet connection is actually a problem due to privacy and security concerns, not a solution.
This is one area where I have an issue with SNSR. The underlying holdings are a mish mash of products from different sectors that may connect to the internet. The internet connectivity is just a feature, a small piece of a bigger picture. Below are some of the top holdings that fall into this category:
Dexcom (NASDAQ:DXCM), produces continuous glucose monitoring systems.
Mobileye (NYSE:MBLY), is a provider of leading edge autonomous vehicle vision sensors.
Rockwell Automation (NYSE:ROK), provides industrial control solutions.
Sensata Technologies (NYSE:ST), manufactures products and systems that address safety and environmental concerns, control products, and electromechanical sensors.
Garmin (NASDAQ:GRMN), provides (NYSE:GPS)-enabled navigation products in the Auto, Aviation, Marine, Outdoor, and Fitness industries.
The next issue that I have is that most companies involved with IoT are either large conglomerates, or large technology companies and IoT is one small part of their entire business. SNSR holds companies such as Johnson Controls Intl (NYSE:JCI), STMicroelectronics NV (NYSE:STM), Intel (NASDAQ:INTL), Honeywell Intl (NYSE:HON), to name a few. IoT is lost in the noise of these companies.
What it boils down to is that SNSR has very few pure IoT connectivity holdings. When you buy SNSR you are essentially buying a technology ETF under the guise of an emerging technology fund. Below is a chart of stock prices (normalized) for SNSR and Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA:XLK).
Normalized price chart of SNSR and XLK
Not surprisingly, the performance of SNSR since inception has been very close to XLK, a broad technology ETF. So instead of buying this IoT ETF, why not buy a company that deals specifically with connectivity, thus capturing the broad IoT movement?
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), is such a company. It develops solutions for enhanced wireless communications for use in digital cellular and wireless products and networks. As of December 2015, IDCC had a portfolio of approximately 20,400 patents and patent applications related to the fundamental technologies that enable wireless communications.
IDCC 1 year price chart
According to data provided by Portfolio123, IDCC has an operating margin of 56,2% and Return on Equity (%) trailing twelve months (TTM) of 37.5%. IDCC also has ratings against its industry peers for projected P/E ratio of 97.8, and price to free cash flow of 87. Note that 100 is the best rating, 0 is the worst.
IDCC fundamentals
I, for one, would prefer to buy this single stock, InterDigital, Inc. that is positioned for growth in wireless connectivity, rather than the Global X Global X Internet of Things Thematic ETF.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.
I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Thanks Golfho for your reflections.
I guess I also need to curl up under my bed in search of some badly needed clarity… It seems it has worked for you
From your post I understood you believe that the reason behind the current ATM selling is to comply with the “Going Concern” clause on a quarterly basis.
On another hand some people here believe that the RS would not affect the number of ATM allowable shares to be sold. Let’s also take this assumption to be true (though that would be very weird)
So, if the two above assumptions are true, wouldn’t it be best for PPHM to do the RS a.s.a.p.? The benefit obtained from selling shares would be MUCH greater.
This contradiction makes me believe either:
1.They expect to make a deal really soon… (in a month or so) OR
2.The RS will also affect the number of allowable shares to be sold
I am afraid is the 2nd option
Best wishes to all longs.
That usually tells me they want to buy (or somebody close to them does)
Talk about agendas!
Wise words Danny,
A good 2017 to you too!!!!
The Elephants, the 2 tons, the Vienna sausage... LOL
The mere mortals with no medical education would appreciate some sort of more down to earth explanations that we could grasp!!! Otherwise we (I) would have to speculate about its meaning
i.e. Easy understandable language like: Merry Christmass to all!!!!
Those are very interesting comments and insight coming from the horse's mouth.
It is great to have this sort of real stuff in this board.
Thanks N40K
From aikifredicist at SITC2016 (1)
Here is Sadna’s poster from SITC 2016.
She also brought my attention to the enhancement of the memory T cells with mch1N11 (right portion of the poster part b).
We spoke for about 10 to 15 min.
(thanks to 4ouretirement)
this is Tradero, since it is hard to read the picture (iHub allows) I have tried to zooim in and break it down into a few more detalied ones, though sometimes they are still a bit hard to read...
Thx, that is great news... Even if it is with mice...
Of course if we talk about MSK it is preclinical and therefore not humans
Anti-PS Antibodies Enhances PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
By Bryant Furlow October 27, 2016
From the Onco Therapy Network (first time I read something related to Bavi)
http://www.oncotherapynetwork.com/breast-cancer-targets/anti-ps-antibodies-enhances-pd-l1-immune-checkpoint-blockade-triple-negative-breast-cancer (my apologies if this has already been posted)
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals has announced preliminary findings from preclinical research showing that antiphosphatidylserine (PS) antibodies “similar to bavituximab” improves anti-PD-L1 immune checkpoint blockade’s antitumor activity in a mouse model of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Duke University Medical Center researchers presented (Poster Session B36) the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)’s Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy Conference, held October 20-23, 2016, in Boston.
The research team found that PS enhanced anti-PD-L1 therapy’s antitumor activity in the E0771 mouse model of TNBC after chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or photodynamic therapy.
Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and photodynamic therapy were all associated with subsequently increased PS expression on tumor cells, the researchers noted.
“PS expression is upregulated by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and photodynamic therapy in vitro,” reported lead study author Kensuke Kaneko, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, NC, and coauthors in the poster session. “A combination therapy blocking PS by PS-targeting mAb and immune checkpoint blockade with anti-PD-L1 mAb appears superior to single-agent therapy.”
Combining anti-PS and anti-PD-L1 therapy, with or without paclitaxel chemotherapy, “led to greater antitumor responses than any of the treatments administered as single agents or duel treatment combinations with paclitaxel,” the company announced.
The study is the latest in a series of such small, proof-of-concept preliminary studies. The company’s preclinical research employs ch1N11, “the preclinical equivalent of bavituximab,” in its animal studies.
Bavituximab (and mch1N11 [a novel mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody that targets PS]), investigational monoclonal antibodies, targets PS and PS-mediated inhibition of immune cell recognition of tumor cells; it is believed to weaken tumor-environment immunosuppression and thereby enhance tumor infiltration by lymphocytes. It also appears to decrease expression of tumor-promoting cytokines, which are elevated following anti-PD-1 monotherapy.
“Our future plan is to investigate the effect of local irradiation or photodynamic therapy combined with PS-targeting mAb and anti-PD-L1 Ab,” the coauthors reported.
Preliminary preclinical work has also shown that PS is associated with enhanced PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade antitumor activity in mouse models of melanoma.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recently announced grants for clinical study of bavituximab combination immunotherapy regimens against glioblastoma, head and neck cancer, and liver carcinoma, Peregrine announced.
Thanks so much for your feedback. EOM
Maybe, but I still liked what I heard... In spite of all the doom I read here I still have some hope there is light at the end of the tunnel
I liked the presentation EOM
Thanks MH for sharing your thoughts and knowledge on the matter. A nice breath of fresh air is always very appreciated.
I am very confident RMBS has a bright future ahead... Looking forward to the Analysts Day for news
Thanks Bio,it is actually interesting to read his profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/bruce-freimark-6b59001
Ph.D. experienced with major pharmaceutical and biotechnology research management in cancer and inflammation discover/development research groups with an emphasis in human monoclonal therapy, protein biologics, small molecules and antibody-based tumor imaging; cell-based immunological assays; in vivo preclinical cancer and inflammation models, target validation, pharmacokinetics, toxicokinetics and toxicology assessment of biotherapeutics. coordinating external scientific collaborations, technology assessment and developing corporate partnerships. Experience in writing preclinical sections of INDs, IBs, presentation of data to the FDA, patents, DOD/SBIR/STTR grants, and peer-reviewed manuscripts.
Specialties: Pre-clinical development, discovery and translational research in human antibody therapeutics, small molecules, cancer, gene therapy, inflammation, executive management of pre-clinical research groups from product discovery, development and submission of INDs.
Well of course there should be some sort of side effect
From one the Oncologists who participated in Sunrise, the Bavi side effects were insignificant, very low toxicity...
Anyway, besides this feedback, the company had stressed this point in multiple ocasions. I dont see the reason for doubt
Isn't it te other way around? Shift MERCK - AZN
Planned studies include bavituximab in combination with pembrolizumab (AZN ?, it should be MERCK) in hepatocellular carcinoma,and durvalumab (MERCK?) in NSCLC
I live in Europe and you cannot compare the two situations... UK-Europe and USA-SAmerica
It may not affect me personally, but it will certainly affect the European economy and specially the UK's
M. Britt let me disagree with your thoughts...
This will be bad for Europe as a whole but MAINLY for the UK...
I wonder what Scotland might do now! Isolation is good for nobody
It seems like another Mike was the short
Such a poor reason for shorting....
https://seekingalpha.com/pro/checkout/1565072?notice=pro
IDCC: A Controversial Stock Not Worth The Risk
Direction: Short
Timeframe: N/A
Expected Gain: 00%
There has been a lot of talk about patent reform, litigation, and patent trolls in the media and in Washington of late. Given the endless patent wars between Apple (AAPL) and Samsung, the multi-billion dollar patent portfolio purchases from firms like Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG), and the generally increasing time and expense of getting even a single patent, it's easy to get the feeling that the patent process in this country is largely broken. While Washington politics and lobbying from special interest groups are likely to prevent patent reform for the time being, eventually it is a near certainty that the US will have to reform its patent system.
Based on this risk, I believe that $1.6B market cap...