Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I will leave it to others to explore whether or not TB is party to the hiding behind PS syndrome or not when it is active.
What I do know is that it would likely be ineffective against the latent form of the illness which is postulated to affect a HUGE percentage of the world's population, maybe 1/3. This is when the disease retreats as the immune system rallies. At that time it is encapsulated by the body in granulomas which gradually become calcified. TB can break out of this granuloma (jail) when the immune system becomes weak again, maybe years later. About 20% of the time it succeeds in doing so, even 20 years after the original infection. An individual is not infectious during the latent phase. Perhaps it would be close to say they are a carrier.
Please include a link. Thanks.
Great post, WH. Thanks, Reify EOM
Thanks you, Generis. You have answered my questions.
Reify99
I've been looking at various boards today and noticed certain posters who included a symbol and the words
"compensated awareness post" in each message. They even announced that they were on a short term campaign to promote that stock and what their compensation was for the week. The company received
funds for this.
Screening for companies with this kind of relationship with posters seems to me to be as valid a criteria as percentage of insider ownership, etc. Is their any requirement across iHub to reveal this relationship when one posts. Or to reveal when one is paid to post criticism of a stock/company?
Could one screen the company for such relationships in the iBox, for example?
Thanks, Reify99
4th quarter earnings should be out around Feb 10.
Thank you Thales. I have read the hyperbole by the CEO. If the patents are strong I think it will have some legs. I was fortunate to buy/sell this during the recent profit taking so I'm OK with my entry point.
OT: Another one I like is Cellestis CST.AX/CLLWF.PK. This Australian CO has a one step process for TB testing that is more accurate and doesn't rely on patients coming back to have their TB skin test read.
WHO has approved it. Profitable and growing fast as they gain market share from the antiquated PPD/TB skin test worldwide. It also differentiates latent illness from the BCG vaccine.
It's so thinly traded you practically need an appointment!
Some info here:
http://www.sharesguru.com/forum/cellestis-cst-2013-1140.html
Company website here:
http://www.cellestis.com/
I used to be a TB nurse.
Regards, Reify
Quite a few Biotechs moving today. Now that Phase III endpoint has been reached does anyone know a specific date when NVLT will submit data to FDA?
Thanks
OT: Does anyone know how I could buy shares of Affitech. There's a pink sheet but it doesn't look like it's functioning. TIA, Reify
If you look at OCNF together with it's peers it lags their recent gains. The company says they have their act together updating their fleet but not adding the additional cost of new shipbuilding. From what I can find they have chartered over 80% of days for 2010, (but I don't have the latest info.) They have financing for additional upgrades to the fleet and overall debt levels are OK. Financially, current ratio is good.
So, to answer your question, it looks ready to pop but I don't know what the catalyst will be. Any ideas?
maybe the term is "secured coverage" for days in 2010 that ships are already chartered.
Does anyone know what the percentage of days rental reserved in 2010 is now that the new year has started. Avg day price across the fleet would be nice to know too.
tia, reify
So is there any real news to explain this drop?
Thanks.
I also understand that NVLT's drug is inexpensive. (How inexpensive?)In that case patent protection is really a bigger issue if efficacy has been established.
mAb's being developed for this disease(disclosure-I own PPHM), will presumably be much more expensive, and there's probably a chance that NVLT's product could be used as an adjunct to these.
yes,my understanding is that the current study is a phase II.
What red flags do you see?
TIA, Reify
I consulted an Art Director, of more than one publication, since 1976. Academic orientation. Magazine put together in one state and printed in another. Around 300k circulation I believe. Used to be, anyway.
Have no idea about late changes to articles except that it might involve Art Director pulling own hair out.
"In press" just means it's in production at the printer being printed on paper. They can also publish it online before, during, or after that process. If you can't find it online yet, then they may be waiting to publish online when the print copies are available. (That's what we do -- put up the digital edition as soon as the print version goes into the mail stream).
The above is from a contact who works in the publishing industry at an educational journal.
Regards, Reify
Lemmy,
As we all know, PPHM has outsourced it's science and it's dilution over the years.
Were this a private company the dilution would occur to the founders.
My unabashedly 'glass half full' view of this is that the science has gone further in this way than it could have if financed by a small group of wealthy individuals.
My personal calculation (or tea leaf reading if you prefer) is that the dilution is coming to an end because any number of projects are close to fruition or to being recognized as viable.
IMO the overhang of authorized shares is going to be reserved largely for a buy-in by a larger company that recognizes this.
Happy Holidays to you and yours.
Regards, Reify
And if I had Garrison Keilor's "Edco Line Calculator", as advertised on "Prairie Home Companion," I could point it at the grocery store lines and know which one would move faster. That would eliminate an opportunity cost right there. You could always get in the fastest line.(HehHeh)
EntDoc- My intention was not to tout CRXL but to show how Avid stood to gain by affiliating with it.
FWIW my intention in comparing PPHM to TPIV in an earlier message was not to tout TPIV but to compare the two companies that have products with a similar aim, namely to fight pathogens, not by attacking them directly but by inducing an improved response in the immune system itself.
Many posters criticize PPHM with such repetitiveness that it is drummed into the uncritical reader like a hypnotic suggestion, even though the argument is flawed. (If it (insert any negative event) happened once it has to happen again forever.)I am heartened by the willingness of other posters to take their dissembling arguments to task.
In comparing TPIV to PPHM I had hoped that some would recognize again how far PPHM has come when comparing it to this early stage preclinical company. This is not to disparage TPIV either, just to say it is a toddler when compared to PPHM.
I don't think my earlier message was as effective.
I don't consider myself an expert on Crucell but I have followed the company (and had a position in it's shares for much of) the last ten years. FWIW I think it's on it's way to reaching a bargain price again now.
I am also not a financial expert either so my thesis here is painted with broad strokes. I welcome anyone's elucidation of the finer points--EntDoc? MassOncology?
Aside from their currently profitable vaccine business Crucell intends to be the "Intel Inside" for Mabs and proteins developed by various BPs and LPs.(Little Pharmas) It has an immortalized human cell line based on fetal retinal cells with which these products can be developed. Their stated goal is to have 25% of this market worldwide. Here is a list of the companies that use their human cell line/processes for development of their own products:
strategic partners:
http://www.crucell.com/Partners_-_Strategic_Partners
R&D partners:
http://www.crucell.com/Partners%20-%20General%20Overview
Crucell and Merck together maintain a library of research findings that are made available to every licensee.
This strikes me as quite a list.
Avid's press release detailing agreement with Crucell/DSM:
http://www.avidbio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=115:dsm-and-crucell-sign-agreement-with-avid-bioservices-to-serve-as-first-pre-approved-us-contract-manufacturer-of-perc6r-cell-line-proteins&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=109
Avid makes money NOW if they get a slice of the research production from some of these companies that use Crucell's proprietary cell line and processes. If any of these products get FDA approval they get a multiple of what they make in the research phase as production ramps up.
Crucell uses a royalty model whereby they get upfront, milestone payments and a percentage of revenue when a product goes to market. They keep their cards close to their vest, however, as to specifics. They get a little money now and a revenue stream later if all goes well. Not for impatient investors that want immediate fireworks.
I don't know if Avid/Peregrine use any kind of tiered fee structure
such as upfront, milestone, royalty payments in their contracts or not. Would be smart, particularly with biosimilars.
Crucell is profitable and after their recent agreement with Johnson & Johnson where J&J took an 18% stake in the company they have considerable cash on hand. (311 million Euro in cash and equivalents).Strong company to be associated with.
My own bias is that it is wise for a biotech company to have a way to make it through these tough economic times while developing further to fulfill the core mission. I believe Peregrine is doing this with Avid
and Crucell did this by buying Berna Biotech which had the pentavalent vaccine for childhood diseases. Peregrine's solution looks like it's just starting to rev up whereas Crucell's is losing some steam with competition from two vaccine manufacturers in India.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE5BE0GY20091215
This relationship with Crucell IS a partnership or alliance folks,- whatever you want to call it.
Here's another one that Avid recently announced:
http://www.avidbio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=122:avid-bioservices-becomes-us-west-coast-partner-of-boehringer-ingelheims-global-production-alliance-network-for-biologic-contract-manufacturing-services&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=109
I'll leave it to someone else to shed some light on the Boehringer-Ingelheim alliance. It may be equally important. One thing that I suspect is common to both is that financial benefit is incremental. The risk is spread, born by the company doing the research. Each company that contracts with Avid is taking a risk on its research compound but Avid is only risking the loss of that particular revenue stream if that company's product fails. The research company that contracts with Avid is swinging for the fences like Peregrine is with BAVI. Avid is going for a long streak of base hits. I believe Peregrine and Avid's different approaches will prove to be a fortuitous combination.
All IMHO. Do your own DD. Regards,and GLTA, Reify
I bought a few more shares today at $2.63, then raised my limit price to get the fill I wanted by the day's end. Ended up with an average cost of $2.688 for the day. Added about 15% to my position.
I found this stock when Crucell struck a deal with PPHM for CMO
services. It was really Avid that got my attention. My view continues to be that Avid will progressively increase it's revenues and reach the point that it is able to keep the company afloat while we wait for its Mabs to pay off. Crucell has done the same thing with it's pentavalent vaccine business. It's the ticket but it's not the prize. My eyes are on the prize.
I enjoy MoRealJess. It reminds me of my debate team days.
I appreciate the crafting of an argument even if it is fluff. If it's really good fluff. But I say this to them,- Yes, this company has made it thus far by diluting itself almost to oblivion in order to fund it's research progress. That is the norm for biotech. They could still do more. If it were a private company it would be the founders who were getting diluted. My view is that it is coming to an end. And it is the threat of more dilution that enables me to build my position.
All IMO, of course. Happy Holidays to everyone.
Reify
Either it was a typo by a tired broker on a Friday afternoon or a cool strategy to net $150.
IMO Reify
Thank you, Entdoc. She did opt for the gamma knife several years ago.
It was successful at stopping tumor growth and, ultimately shrinking the tumor.
Regards, Reify
Correct me if I'm wrong Entdoc but the way I interpret your message is that since BAVI has a different mode of action, different from the mode many researchers are pursuing, they will likely continue allegiance to their chosen research path and greet any new approach with a lukewarm reception at best. After all, it threatens their grant money, their bread and butter.
It's like the two doctors who campaigned to treat my mother's brain tumor. (An acoustic Neuroma, not glioblastoma.) The surgeon said that cutting(or, surgery) was the best, while the radiologist said that the "gamma knife was the best. (This was Mass General)
One develops loyalty to one's approach such that, "When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail to you."
Regards, Reify (RN)
TPIV vs PPHM continued:
1.Correction:
The principals do have a university connection:
University of British Columbia Agreement We had conducted our research and development at the University of British Columbia ("UBC") under a Collaborative Research Agreement ("CRA"), however, as a consequence of our Option and Settlement Agreement with UBC, we presently plan to conduct or contract out our own research and development and continue to contract out clinical grade production of our TAP based vaccines. In addition, we have an option on any improvements or related TAP technologies coming out of UBC.
I don't think this constitutes a research consortium, however.
2. Another distinction:
TPIV has a very quiet iHub board:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=1454
Regards, Reify
For some perspective here's a PPHM competitor, e-a-r-l-y in the game: TPIV, Tapimmune, Inc
http://www.google.com/finance?q=tpiv
Similar goal, different MOA, E-A-R-L-Y results indicate their product induces immunity to cancer, may have application to many infectious diseases by helping the immune system to recognize the pathogen. The science sounds good:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-4MJJMWY-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F08%2F2007&_alid=592103107&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=search&_cdi=5188&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=1&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e8af81fca49b3fdf195769a1581af0fa
Recent deal to use Crucell's PerC.6 cell line:
http://www.tapimmune.com/news/index.php?&content_id=54
They don't have any money. Just starting the share dilutions to fund bringing the product along.(How many more?)
http://www.tapimmune.com/news/index.php?&content_id=55
They are planning phase 1's in several areas:
The Company is currently planning the development AdhTAP for the commencement of clinical manufacturing and toxicology studies. The Company is also developing a TAP based prophylactic vaccine which initial tests indicate may increase the efficacy of targeted prophylactic vaccines by up to 1000 times.
So there are several things in common:
1.TPIV has Novel science. Their product doesn't rely on the patient's immune system but uses it.
2.TPIV has a Shortage of funds.
3.TPIV has a Deal with Crucell
There are several differences:
1. TPIV is a bulletin board stock.
2. TPIV has No Garnick
3. TPIV has No Chabner
4. TPIV has No Avid
5. TPIV has No DTRA contract
6. TPIV has No university consortium doing outsourced research using company's product candidate.
7. TPIV has no research results on humans to show in vivo efficacy.
8. TPIV has seen no studies published related to it's product candidates since 2007.
What conclusions can we draw from this, if any?
Regards, Reify
Thank you drragmop. On the one hand we are always impatient for new information on PPHM's mAb science. But we also have already received a huge amount of data as to efficacy and action of these products. Thank you for mining this detail for us differentiating it's MOA from anti-PS syndrome.
IMO
Regards, Reify
Painting with a small brush today.
OT-Squabbling-Rather than rub each other's noses in it we could compile an ongoing list of predictions and whether they come to pass a la Jim Jubak.
This could be in columns-prediction,date, time to fruition, change in share price since prediction. It could include both positive and negative predictions and provide an ongoing track record for those bold enough to predict. Past predictions could remain on the list contributing to the cumulative score. Perhaps the cumulative accuracy score could be attached to the profile of the person predicting so that,at a glance, one could read both the current opinion and the track record of the poster. If the predicter refused to allow the profile change or couched the prediction in vague language the profile could read- "refuses scoring" so that one could see they were not interested in a fair evaluation. Enough of this behavior could be considered a TOS violation and could result in suspension.
I have no idea how much of this is possible on IHub. I do not have time to compile this either. But it's a thought. It might cut down on the slipper throwing here in the rooming house.
Regards, Reify
Sold out because in stock/rights offering 'rights' are not being given to US investors. That amounts to a $.17 hit in buying any new shares to avoid dilution. Yahoo board on LYSCF.PK has more.
Good luck to all. IMO
Regards, Reify
Crucell now has the cash and already has a tie through Avid/Per.C6 connection. Stranger things have happened.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200909280914dowjonesdjonline000163&title=crucell-ceo-now-is-a-good-time-for-acquisitions
Thank you Dia.
Enter BHP?
Lynas Corp(LYC) – Trading Halt – pending an announcement on a potential funding transaction. Last traded at 90c. It announced that China Nonferrous Metal Mining pulled out of a rare earths project after the FIRB changed foreign investment laws yesterday.
http://www.asxnewbie.com/Sharemarket/Midday-Market-Roundup/midday-market-roundup-25th-september.html
Sept 24 (Reuters) - Australia rejected a $400 million proposal on Thursday for Chinese state-owned firm China Non-Ferrous Metal Mining (Group) Co (CNMC) to take a majority stake in miner Lynas Corp Ltd (LYC.AX), owner of the world's richest deposit of rare earths metals. [ID:nSYU007273]
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSSYD47722220090924
The following appears to be a good source of info regarding rare earth companies:
http://irblog.blogs.com/rare_metal_blog/lynas-corporation-ltd/
Regards, Reify
I really appreciate the links.
Regards, Reify