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.
Jake, don't you see the February 9 PPHM press release as being news that could have precipitated the February 17 volume? There has been that pps walk up and increasing volume in the interim period.
I put an excerpt from the 2/9/17 PR below that, in practice, roots into 1/28 technical news from Dr. Schroit. A one week time lag for the bigger volume doesn't seem out of line if the trading action reflects a party establishing a position in PPHM. I recall when Blackrock announced how exited their > 5% position about a year ago, the pps had also moved to around 60 cents and the level of short interest dropped way down. Just a coincidence?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:PPHM) (NASDAQ:PPHMP), a biopharmaceutical company committed to improving patient lives by manufacturing high quality products for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies and advancing its proprietary R&D pipeline, today announced the publication of positive proof-of-concept data for a novel exosome-based cancer detection platform. Results of the study, conducted at University of Texas (UT) Southwestern Medical Center, showed researchers were able to distinguish between healthy subjects and patients with ovarian tumors based on the levels of exosomes containing phosphatidylserine (PS) found in their plasma. Furthermore, analysis of the PS-positive exosome levels allowed researchers to distinguish between malignant and benign tumors. These data were recently published online by the peer-reviewed journal, Oncotarget, in a paper titled, “Detection of phosphatidylserine-positive exosomes as a diagnostic marker for ovarian malignancies: a proof-of-concept study.”
Peregrine is currently advancing the proprietary exosome-based cancer diagnostic technology, licensed from UT Southwestern Medical Center in July 2016, with the goal of developing an optimized test for further clinical testing. As part of these efforts, the company is in the process of seeking a strategic partner for collaboration on developing and commercializing the technology. The platform is based on the diagnostic potential of tumor exosomes, which are small vesicles from tumor cells that are released into the blood as tumors grow. Tumor derived exosomes have PS on their surface as a detectable marker. It is believed that even small tumors begin to release PS-positive exosomes and thus the ability to detect these exosomes in the blood may be an indicator of the presence of a tumor.
Excerpt from StreetInsider.com listing of notable PPHM investors:
Fund Title Shares % Owned Source
Fondren Management LP COM NEW 4,500,000 2.55% 13F
VANGUARD GROUP INC COM NEW 4,308,595 2.44% 13F
BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. COM NEW 4,236,805 2.40% 13F
RENAISSANCE TECHNOLOGIES LLC COM NEW 2,473,846 1.40% 13F
BATTERYMARCH FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INC COM NEW 547,800 0.31% 13F
QS Investors, LLC COM NEW 503,400 0.29% 13F
Squarepoint Ops LLC COM NEW 469,100 0.27% 13F
BLACKROCK ADVISORS LLC COM NEW 453,185 0.26% 13F
Commonwealth Equity Services, Inc COM NEW 413,261 0.23% 13F
AQR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC COM NEW 190,991 0.11% 13F
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA \ COM NEW 134,500 0.08% 13F
Bungler,
Exemption from the premarket notification requirement was in bold, so I presume that was your adder?
Also, premarket in this context would be referring to the technical market that provides for testing reagents, I suppose. That would appear to be referring to FDA approval not being required for a reagent that is being used by an FDA regulated in vitro diagnostic manufacturer.
So it would appear that, in order to sell the diagnostic reagent to a commercial application, PPHM needs to accomplish either some sort of FDA standing for the three categories you outlined from the reg or to sell/partner the sale of the reagent to a party that has approval from the FDA for doing such diagnostic analysis, yes?
The excerpt below is from your post...
(a) Analyte specific reagents (ASR's) (864.4020 of this chapter) are restricted devices under section 520(e) of the Federal Food, Drugs, and Cosmetic Act (the act) subject to the restrictions set forth in this section.
(b) ASR's may only be sold to:
(1) In vitro diagnostic manufacturers;
(2) Clinical laboratories regulated under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), as qualified to perform high complexity testing under 42 CFR part 493 or clinical laboratories regulated under VHA Directive 1106 (available from Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC 20420); and
(3) Organizations that use the reagents to make tests for purposes other than providing diagnostic information to patients and practitioners, e.g., forensic, academic, research, and other nonclinical laboratories.
All in all, this doesn't appear to be a problem for near term delivery of the Bavi related diagnostic reagents for sale but for the need to make the sale to the qualifying facilities. However, the qualifying facility may need to go through some sort of FDA review for the use of a new reagent, would they not? Hence, a role for partnering with PPHM?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
CP, regarding your recent insightful posts, you had suggested a series of prospective "yes, no" questions that could be answered using what Wookie calls the APP platform. You started me thinking further on your point, I observe there are intermediate logic steps that may also indicate value from a Bavi applied "flagging" of tumor exposed PS or ES in apoptosis (think I wrote that technically right).
For the diagnostic capabilities that we are guessing about at this point:
1. Ability to detect existence of elevated exposed PS, ES or other "inside out" amino acids in cancer cells. Yes or No. My observation is that last week's announced proof of concept says yes to this ability with an apparent 100% success rate. 100% is a cool outcome.
2. Ability to do item one plus provide quantification of how much exposed PS or ES bio marking has occurred. The degree of indicated PS exposure being able to be quantified and calibrated to an indicator of the extent of cancer present seems like it would be a very useful tool for assisting the dosing of other therapies. Can PPHM APP tech do quantification? Yes or no. My guess is that quantification is a yes, but we don't know that for sure and one might expect more research would be needed to calibrate the significance of exposed PS/ES bio marking to cancer extent and therapeutic measures. That dynamic could proceed on the path PPHM has started but would be much accelerated if a partner came forward, IMO. For comparison, consider the current liver enzymes tests that can translate back to blood levels being "normal" and various degrees of elevation if the body is experiencing illness. The Bavi APP might create a similar diagnosis assisting tool for cancer therapeutics.
3. Ability to do items one or two plus provide a means for sorting cancer type being indicated by the biomarker. I observe that PS/ES exposure is common to all the cancers (by my understanding) as well as to some viruses. Sorting out which ones are present might be accomplished (I don't see how, but am working the logic sequence)but I observe that experience using the biomarkers might enable some general sorting to identify what is present. There would be enhanced value, if so, but research with a partner would certainly speed things along so that resources don't overly constrain the development.
4. Ability to do items one, two or three plus provide enhanced effectiveness of the applied cancer treatment itself. We already know that the Bavi studies were looking for benefits that might be delivered if the attachment of Bavi to inside out exposed PS/ES activated the body's own immune system to recognize the cancer cell or virus infected cells and get to work. Of course, the Bavi studies have not yet cleared past uncertainties of certain Beta Bodies being present and there are things about the technology I don't really understand. Last year's halt to the Phase 3 Bavi study indicates more is needed in research here. However, there is still a directional prospect of APP therapeutic value that needs to be checked out.
A general question for those that know the tech better than I: Can the Bavi analyticals be accomplished with just a blood sample and introduction of trace quantities of Bavi in a test lab to determine items 1 through 3 above or must a patient actually receive a Bavi treatment dose to exhibit the desired indicators in a blood sample? It would seem that a blood sample and lab work with Bavi would suffice for items one, two and maybe three. Maybe items 3 and 4 would require monitoring of a patient post Bavi treatment?
Just my chemical engineering, questioning mind at work..., no expertise on the subject matter under question.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Realist, I recall, the last quarterly report posted total PPHM operating losses have accumulated to about $550 million. That amounts to about $2 per share. What is that offsetting loss worth to a profitable Pharma if PPHM is acquired?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Excellent. Thanks for the history memory jog, golfho.
KT
BDU, waiting is what PPHM investors do. It is all we know, right? LOL.
Something seems different in this pps movement that I am hoping will show some of us how the wait was worth it as we approach April 10. Why just some? I bought my first shares of TCLN when trading was at a pre-reverse split pps equivalent of $35. Cost averaging has brought that recovery math way down for me but I presume many also bought first shares of PPHM at a much higher pps, as well. PPHM must perform superbly to bring a pps to make everyone long invested happy, it seems. Of course, any up movement is welcome but my wife won't be happy until I can tell her we recovered all our PPHM investment from over the years.
I decided to wait PPHM out when the pps dropped years ago due to news of that CTL staffer making an error in the Bavi study cohort labeling. Now Avid revenue growth appears structured for continued upside and is backfilling enough shareholder value for the pps to rebound to the $1.25 analyst target, if investors wait for Avid to fully blossom, IMO. Avid growth appears to have been the primary basis for the recent analysts estimates in the first place. Now we have PPHM technology for targeting PS and ES reemerging as valuable. What is that worth?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Geo, if you consider how the pre RS pps had been hovering in the $1.10 to $1.20 range while many millions of shares traded and how the 5:1 RS equivalent to the current share price is something like eight 1/2 cents, a twelve to fifteen fold increase would be needed to simply make those entrants to PPHM investment "whole". The "sunk cost" of an investment becomes irrelevant while current market forces dominate value. If current market forces responding to a combination of Avid earnings growth and some success in PPHM combo trials success places market capitalization for PPHM into the multi-billion range, I will be delighted.
ES and friends cutting coupons if the pps offer for a buyout is $10 per share? Hmmm. I expect that sort of talk fits best if the events that led to the pps dropping to forty cents had not happened. They did happen (no denial here) and my expectations root on what Avid might be worth if PPHM market capitalization valuation is placed at four times annual Avid sales that start posting above $100 million annually. Then there is the Bavi family of technologies value, which the pps drop earlier this year suggests the market had been valuing at maybe two-thirds of pre trial halt announcement market capitalization.
Your statement here is right on:
I do not look at what will make the shareholders happy because that will not determine the sale price.
We must not forget that ES is in that group of shareholders who has had to adjust expectations to post trial halt upside potential. Yes, there is still good upside potential IMO, as I would sell my long term investment if I thought otherwise. PPHM continues to be a very high risk investment in which the full value of investment could be lost that I observe is being quite ably propped up by Avid earnings growth for the near term.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
MH Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. Your closing statement could be the opening, as well, IMO.
I trust that as long as the folks in the institutions that work with Peregrine have their hands on the product, are continuing to evaluate it under various settings, and have not seen a reason to dump it, it communicates a simple message. If it is a worthy effort for their time investment in pursuit of a medical breakthrough, it is worthy of consideration for us investors.
I have been waiting for PPHM to better clarify how their expected expanding Avid earnings and ongoing trials are translating to the share holder value long term investors have been anticipating. The futility halt fully caught me by surprise but it now seems Avid earnings alone can walk the pps back towards the pre-news trading level if PPHM demonstrates it is not squandering its Avid earnings.
I missed reading most of the IHUB posts here since I last posted about a year ago (over 40,000 posts!?!). Yours was a good one to start a board review with. Thanks again. I will be checking in occasionally to see what people think about PPHM/Avid progress.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Nuke, the last time I observed there being so much of a "convergence of events" underway with PPHM was in advance of when the pps started climbing for no announced reason and reached $5.50 before collapsing on that trial mischief news.
Those 40,000 share +/- short sale push backs we keep observing getting dumped on the pps, where someone is leaving traces they are playing position protection games have been occurring again during recent trading with PPHM. Did you notice?
A couple years back, just before the pps started to walk up to $5.50, some parties were doing pushing the same pps walk down pattern-- wash, rinse, repeat. They would shove the pps down with a dumping of shares in the 30,000 to 40,000 share range in a couple trades. But one day, that volume started getting swallowed up by engulfing purchases. A few cycles of this dumping smothered by engulfing support would occur until whoever was doing the shoving waited for a higher pps and shoved again, just to see the volume engulfed and the pps walk up even higher. That occurred until the crescendo at around $5.50 pps. Then that pps crashed when PPHM announced on a Friday evening after normal trading stopped that there was a discovery of Phase 2 Bavi trial dose "labeling errors" at CSM that appeared like it may have been intentional. The pps came crashing down below a buck in one brief pre-market session that Monday morning when long investors had been hoping a European cancer conference would see standout news of Bavi success announced, but instead, we heard AF spilling the beans to his network ahead of news. Normal trading never got a chance to let us small retail investors do anything but watch helplessly.
That was then, this is now. This time around, PPHM has more momentum, more professional and intellectual capital engaged, more patent protection in place, more ISTs underway, more financial resources and a "locked and loaded" Avid sales and expansion infrastructure in place. Thus, I am watching very carefully for the trading pattern that signals a repeat of that PPHM pps walk up without news. PPHM told us today that we should see things break loose for PPHM, "yay or nay" within the next six to eighteen months. Maybe we will see that mysterious "walk up" sooner??
I had a goal of doubling the number of PPHM shares I was holding relative to those crash events of a couple years ago so I could be better prepared for when PPHM regroups and delivers. I accomplished a tripling of shares held. Now how much is enough, LOL?!
With $68 million in cash at the end of April and $40 million in back logged Avid orders in the queue, the PPHM burn of a net $19 million cash over the last fiscal year seems well under control.
Nice! Wow, that was a long.... dry.... wait.... while long investors sifted scraps for news, filled with periods of disillusionment and heart burn. FWIW, I declined to read the last 3000 or so posts during this dry spell since I last checked in and another 3000 posts before that. I hope those who did daily board reading during that period found mutual support and don't have ulcers, LOL! The pps was at around $1.40 and behaving like watching drying paint when I unplugged about 6000 posts back FWIW. Notice now that someone walked the pps down to $1.19 to set a new low and we are pretty much back to the same reference point from a couple years ago.... in just a two week trading period leading into today's news. Hmmmm.
Can you tell I am getting excited about PPHM prospects (again)?
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
I find this quote in the PR interesting:
"Avid Bioservices had a strong fourth quarter and record fiscal year (FY) generating $9.3 million in contract manufacturing revenue in the fourth quarter of FY 2015 and $26.7 million in contract manufacturing revenue for the full FY 2015," said Paul Lytle, chief financial officer of Peregrine. "We have also continued to see a strong demand for contract manufacturing services that has grown our committed backlog to approximately $40 million. With the new manufacturing facility coming online in the near future, Avid is positioned to meet the growing demand of existing and potential future clients while also preparing for our potential commercial launch of bavituximab."
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/peregrine-pharmaceuticals-reports-fourth-quarter-and-yearend-fiscal-year-2015-financial-results-an-20150714-01006#ixzz3fu6eE8U9
And Sunrise trial enrollment being on track:
Continued progress enrolling ongoing SUNRISE clinical trial in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); study remains on schedule to complete enrollment by end of calendar 2015
Add cash reserves being sustained at levels more than sufficient to finish the job:
Peregrine reported $68,001,000 in cash and cash equivalents as of April 30, 2015, compared to $77,490,000 at fiscal year ended April 30, 2014.
And plenty more achieved with intellectual property and late stage trials being prepared for launch. Very nice PPHM and Avid!
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Thank you golfho. Your timing assessment is reasonably laid out. My less frequent posting matches my recognition that, while a Pharma collaboration can happen any time, the Sunrise trial will progress at its designed pace.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Tech, I would see that as unlikely. A CSM selection decision should be at the Senior exec level.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
EBS, Thanks for sharing. A lingering question is, if PPHM had concerns with the HCV results, why did PPHM stick with CSM for services for ensuing trials? Did awareness of the problem just click for PPHM late into the compromised Ph 2 trial?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
CP, while I agree that it appears that the CSM cross labeling of trial doses was not an accident, it saddens me to hear that there is cause to believe that CSM was involved with the earlier PPHM HCV trial and that the trial may have been adversely impacted by apparent "anomolies" experienced under CSM's service delivery. Do you know if there is an association with JB handling or managing the HCV trial?
Considering a more positive outlook than trial mischief set backs, PPHM is resourced to finish the trial work underway and the timeline for when the interim trial result reporting can be expected with a high level of certainty is coming into focus. Perhaps, delivery no later than end of 2016? Perhaps, more imminent as we learn more? What are your thoughts on the timeline to delivery of interim results that affirm the success/failure track of the ongoing Phase 3 trial?
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
PD, sounds like we are in synch with interpretation here.
KT
CB, the mislabeling events cross mixed between two arms inconsistently.. If JB had been consistent in labeling but inserting errors due to a misunderstanding about product received, she at worst, would have had all the dosing misidentified the same. That is, the A arm may have been getting the intended B arms dosing. In the end, the arms would have had consistent mislabeling and recovery would have not needed the blending of two arms to create a new comparator arm.
The cross labeling was occurring within the CSM shop.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
PD, is JB claiming she thought she needed to mix up the vials because if not, PPHM might be able to figure out who received what treatment at a later time? Circular logic offered by one confused or is this just a distraction to cover up how intentional mix ups were practiced and discovered?
Not enough information has been shared in the court proceedings yet to resolve this.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Cheynew, a remarkable statement indeed! JB is claiming she never took responsibility for the treatment material for which CSM agreed to carry responsibility for double blinding and labeling and for which CSM had assigned for her to manage. Did I read this right? The reason cited was that CSM didn't have a direct agreement with the supplier. Remarkable indeed.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Wook, well said. It looks like PPHM's pps is behaving like it is waking up from a long winter's rest. Or maybe a Rip Van Winkle story LOL!? I am cautiously optimistic that the interim trial results are validating what we had hoped was being shown around the timing the announcement of the CSM mislabeling of trial meds dealt PPHM investors a setback. This time, I hold a lot more shares....
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
EBS, having the research funds in the hands of an independent party on track to validate science behind PS targeting is a good thing for PPHM, IMO. Remember when critiques on this board were flagging concern about there not being buzz in the research community. I hear buzzing now, don't you?
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
Gene, or another answer can be PPHM is just using the cash reserve to support operations and the Phase 3 NSCLC trial, just as has been reported by PPHM to the SEC.
The delist option you described cannot happen the way you described.
Regarding partnering, I still adhere to the view that PPHM needs to have more than one Pharma interested to leverage clout.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
EBS, why put so much weight on the Class Action suit status? The way I understand it, the party bringing suit lost money with their speculative options trading after the pps going into the option expiration weekend in September 2012 were priced referencing around a $5.50 pps and the pps for Monday pre market trading had been dropped to about a buck. That was about a five to one drop facilitated with trading that most (all) retail investors in the common stock cannot participate in (I.e. pre market).
Why do I see the CA a relative so what for prospective partnering deals? Consider if the converse of events from around September 21 to 24, 2012 were to occur this weekend. I am not saying it will, but there are inklings of PPHM news being due, so let's play with that notion. A theoretical situation could see the pps going into this March options expiration weekend around current pricing, say $2.40 pps. PPHM could have pre market news released for Monday that some parties consider to be outstanding. Those same parties that traded pre market last September 2012 could trade pre market Monday morning and move the pps up five fold before the first share of normal trading clears at 8:30 AM Eastern. Long investors could think that is wonderful. The writers of options would think??? Or the news could be bad like it was back in September 2012 and the pre market trading could drop the pps five fold, to say fifty cents. What would the lawyers soliciting class action clients do with that mess!? LOL.
My take away is that actions by a prospective partner would be expected to be influenced by the substance of the news, not what lawyers bring into play on behalf of parties that speculated and lost money, don't you think?
By the way, if that figurative situation for my point does happen, I hope long share holders get to enjoy the five fold rise, this time around, LOL. PPHM has been and remains a high risk investment.
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
PPHMownsME, it seems that one of the positives about the preferred shares is that Avid is generating revenue more than sufficient to service the preferred dividends. Sure, PPHM needs funds to cover operational funding plus trials and the preferred shares are serving that need. How funds are designated still leaves PPHM needing more funding to cover Phase 3 trial and other trial costs. Yet, Avid is providing those incoming revenues, so it is reasonable to note that PPHM is not using the borrowed funds to pay the dividends. Avid revenue is making for a less risky investment for those who purchase PPHMp shares.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Gene, for a moment I thought you were going to try to explain the law of entropy, LOL! That law, by my recollection, is what describes the force that works to shift things that are in order into disorder (sorry for not looking it up). I think entropy best describes how to figure out PPHM investing, LOL!
KT
Paul, thanks for clarifying. The break fits, but it is good to be sure.
KT
Goodplenty100, How can one do anything but guess about what is going to happen with such things? PPHM has a history of and continues to be a high risk investment, even though some on this board have shared their opinions that the trial results that PPHM is bringing forward are making future company prospects look hopeful. Will something happen by option expiration this week that really moves the pps? Who knows? That would be nice, but when the focus becomes on "this week or else" for something to happen to impact the pps, risk gets much higher and prospects of losses greater. Either way, those who take positions in options to hedge their investment risk are also speculating about outcomes and can find their hedging measures pay off or become worthless as options expire.
That said, there is that "Max Pain" index that gets referenced on this board from time to time. If you are curious, it identifies by calculation where the pps would reside when the payout by option writers for puts and calls at options expiration is balanced to be minimized. Somehow, the PPHM pps seems to move around to be harmonious with this Max Pain index more often than not. This week, I observe the pps is lingering just high enough to deliver a modest payout for those who established call option positions back when the pps was still lingering around $1.40. That gives about an 80 cent pps rise weighed against the option purchase price. Also, there are still about a million shares of call option open interest. Will that dynamic last through this weekend? Who knows?
How much did the value of call options expiring this weekend change from close of trading Friday to today's close? How about since the pps run up to over $3? That all makes for interesting speculation-- and high investment risk.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Gene, the reference Cheynew posted indicates parties entered into a stipulation agreement that is structured to give the Plaintiffs through March 26 to file another amended complaint after they have seen the Defendants' response to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint that was due for filing in February. The stipulation agreement should mean that the no later than March 26 Third Amended Complaint option has been agreed to by both sides, so wouldn't it be unlikely that the Judge would order a dismissal before then? It seems time is running out for the Class Action Suit unless the Plaintiff files something substantive that they haven't been able to bring forward with earlier complaints that strikes a cord with the Judge. Not likely, but.... I wonder who is paying the Plaintiff's legal fees if the Judge decides in PPHM's favor?
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
Geo, Overlaying the 18 months and climbing, longest survival reported for that one of ten patients currently receiving dosing in that Phase 2 trial places their start of treatment somewhere in the July/August 2012 time frame. This treatment start period Falls after the April 2012 AACR reference information you shared. That means that when PPHM said the Phase 2 trial was ongoing when they reported the results from the Phase 1 trial, there is question about whether "ongoing trial" means patients had started dosing. If it does, that would mean that there are no survivers from those having been dosed before the July/August 2012 time frame. If dosing in the "ongoing trial" started about three months after AACR reporting (a reasonable enough situation), the 18 month and climbing survival patient could have been among the first patients that received Bavi in combination with Sorafenib for the Phase 2 trial.
Dr. Yopp is hinting that the Phase 2 trial is approaching wrap up now and was getting started for recruitment in April 2012.
PPHM 4-4-12 PRESS RELEASE COMMENTS RE: #5591:
“ In [this] presentation, clinical investigators presented data from a Phase I/II trial investigating bavituximab with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer). Of the 9 patients enrolled in the phase I portion of the study, no dose-limiting toxicities or serious adverse events were observed and the trial is now enrolling in the phase 2 part of the study.
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
Paul, I should have asked this clarifying question earlier.
In your note from Chris Keenan, only this statement is in quotes:
“The Phase II portion of this trial is ongoing with 34 of the 38 intended patients currently enrolled, 10 of which are currently on treatment with the longest one on treatment for 18 months,"
Does that mean all the rest of the post you shared are your words and interpretations? If this is not the case, can you repost, indicating clearly, exactly what text was in the note you received from Chris? It could help understanding of interpretations that some are suggesting where the ten patients were a transfer over from the Phase 1 trial into the Phase 2 trial. The note is confusing to me.
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
MazelMan and Wook, clearly accumulation?
Hmmm. That rekindles the hypothetical question, if today is a good entry point for what I am presuming are new large investors, should I be revisiting my retail investment cost averaging with accumulation strategy? I do have enough shares that PPHM success delivers my basic financial objectives, with or without exercising more buying opportunities. If I am in that situation, wouldn't most long retail investors also be similarly situated, except perhaps the investors who entered with a PPHM position since the September 24, 2012 miscoding news crushed the pps in pre market trading?
Again, speaking hypothetically, is it reasonable for retail investors to see less risk with expanding their PPHM holdings, considering how PPHM has modified investment risk since September 2012 by introducing multiple trials for different indications in Anti-Cancer, Anti-Viral and Imaging applications?
Tempering the hypothetical, is the real history of surprise events that have delayed PPHM success and contributed to suppressed pps at times when Retail investors were carrying "hopium" for PPHM delivery of success cause for exercising caution about incurring large prospective losses, at least on paper? Is there always going to be the risk of another shake out (bear raid) being delivered when retail investor expectations are high?
I answer the last question with a resounding "yes". The others, ......
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Entdoc, we don't know the disposition of the 24 patients. My point about the group of ten patients beginning to breach out of the realm of SOC survival was inkled when Chris responded to Paul by clarifying how the liver cancer SCC patients that are undergoing treatment (e.g. standard of care) might survive up to 18 months. PPHM's group of ten longest on treatment patient is reported at the 18 month mark and there will be a lag time from when this data was tallied and when data will be shared at a cancer conference. If survival moves through that lag time, the group will be past the survival range for existing treatments.
My point is, that is drawn from logic applied to information Paul was given by Chris (treatment survival) and what PPHM has announced for this, not a guess. What is reported about the other 24 patients is secondary information that is being referenced as neutral relative to the ten patients receiving treatment.
Enough from me on this..... From last week's PR:
The oral presentation was given at the 67th Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) Annual Cancer Symposium being held March 12-15, 2014 at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona.
Read more: Annual Society of Surgical Oncology Meeting ref March 15 2014
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Corporalagarn, I don't know what effect PPHM is after, but there is some help for the company delivered when PPHM shows how the group of ten patients receiving treatment is starting to breach outside of the high side of the range for survival observed for HCC patients in trials. If that is all PPHM wanted to communicate, they are talking in Pharma partner-ese language, not to retail share holders like me.
Why share this way? My guess is that all the Pharmas that might be in the partner interest reception area are receiving the same information at a critical transitional timing. That is, it looks like PPHM liver cancer treatment with Bavi and Sorafenib is "breaching the SOC survival mark" with a group of 10 of 34 patients in a Phase 2 trial. PPHM: "Look, look, look.....Are you seeing that?! Just so you don't miss it and so you know that your Pharma competitors are all seeing the same thing you are. At timing when additional survival continues to add to the success you might experience if you sign on now. Look, look!" LOL!
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Unemon, that would reinforce both the accumulation by players theory and the theory that the pps is being maneuvered to optimize profit for the writers of call options and those with short positions.
Best interest and IMO.
KT
Unemon, I also think back to my post on Saturday calling out how the PPHM pps was positioned to deliver a modest payout from those writing call options due to expire this week. This walking down of the pps is purging that prospect for payout. A $2 call option that was purchased for a quarter per share is close to shifting into the realm where any "payout" from call options will be less than the option acquisition price. There are now about a million March call options stepping towards expiration without value since the pps surged over $3. And then there are those ten million + short shares that bring benefits to margin trading balances when the pps is depressed.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Unemon, the pps trend just appears to be exhibiting the effects of programmed shorting that we have seen time and again with PPHM. Pps runs up a bit at the start of trading, after which a sale with volume ranging between 25,000 to 100,000 shares reverses the trend. A series of larger volume sales walk the pps down until a lower pps is reached where buying interest gives resistance. If resistance is light, the large volume sales kick in and restart the downward PPHM trend.
Of course, your suggestion that a "player is buying" through all of this can be in play. The market "just doesn't trust PPHM management" appears to be a red herring, to me at least. Daily position entry with programmed sales or any other movement of the stock is done because it can bring profit to those practicing the strategy. I observe the pattern being exhibited on all of the dozen stocks I track on a daily basis, with their management teams being good, bad or indifferent, LOL!
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Corporalagarn, but that still leaves us to wonder why PPHM would leave the status of the 24 patients in the trial but not currently receiving treatment "vague"? Of the 10 actively receiving Bavi combo treatment, the lead off patient is surviving past the 18 months that is the high side of survival for all liver cancer patients that have undergone treatment.
It appears that there are still four more patients targeted for recruitment into the trial (38 less the 34). That suggests that the group of 24 not currently receiving treatment could represent some who are in the trial but have not yet been dosed just as it could represent some who are censored for various reasons or are deceased due to the liver cancer. For the ten still receiving treatment, what is their time since first dosing? We don't know.
Paul, thanks for sharing your feedback from PPHM IR. I suppose one patient's positive outlook at the upper range of survival gives limited cause for celebration. If this patient is still alive and on treatment in another three months and is being followed by a pack of up to nine others with survival beyond six months and climbing, that would seem to be a stand out good result for this Phase 2 with Sorafenib and Bavi. Prospective Pharma partners meeting with PPHM would likely be allowed to see the latest trial results, which should be viewed as positive as patients in the trial survive on treatment going forward.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
Fair enough, Bungler. And with a short leash, most likely.
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
Bungler, Fuerstein is the first speaker. The session chair from Merck does mop up as the third presentation.
KT
Bio, the subject matter and title addressing why so many Phase 3 trials fail delivers the discrete blasting opportunity. All that is absent (not!) is motive, LOL.
Best wishes and IMO,
KT
Bungler, one must not rule out how the speaking role could give AF a bully pulpit to discretely blast PPHM technology as has occurred in his recent articles. Large Pharma and their senior technical staff that select speakers and set conference agendas might find that cause enough to invite AF to their party. Absent PPHM delivery of "the right" business plan milestones before these conferences can leave PPHM's vulnerable belly exposed to a speaker with a mission, whether claims are with or without merit. That holds even if a partner has been announced if the partner isn't a club member.
My, how history can leave one jaded, LOL!
All IMO, of course.
KT