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.
C.J. -- Can you (or someone else who knows how to post images here) please copy and paste here Fig. 4 from yesterday's poster.
If I remember correctly, when Thorpe ran Bavi against Pichinde virus in guinea pigs in the same study 2-3 years ago, he got about a 40% survival rate. Now, in combo with Ribavirin, Run 2 (Fig. 4.B) shows a 70% survival.
Also interesting is that in Run 1 (Fig. 4.A) the 3 mg dose did better than the 0.3 mg dose. But in Run 2 the much smaller 0.3 mg dose did better. So now we know why yet more pre-clinical studies are needed before they are ready to put this stuff in humans.
Equally interesting is Fig. 7 which shows the other big part of today's announcement: Bavi is now confirmed to have in vitro binding on the deadly Ebola strain. All we need is a few more studies to fill in the check marks on the bottom right of this chart and it's BINGO-- our card is full. :) :)
Let's all remember that Ribavirin is the SOC for VHF and the only thing that even works partially in these deadly diseases.
Yes, AVI's anti-sense technology has shown some success against some of these five strains, but the anti-sense approach is not "broad spectrum." It requires the army to know which strain of VHF the terrorists are using and then make up huge quantities of that drug on short notice. By contrast, Fig 7 shows that Bavi has almost run the whole board of VHF possibilities. It's the only true broad spectrum therapy out there (other than Ribavirin) that the gov't can stockpile and know that it will work against any viral strain the terrorists throw at us.
If you were in charge of the Gov't decision to continue Bavi VHF funding and you were looking at Fig 7 and Fig 4 together, WHAT DECISION WOULD YOU MAKE?
Yes, Prospect for new Gov't money is now huge, but you have to go to the PPHM website to see why.
The full Poster with all the efficacy data from yesterday's presentation is found at:
PPHM website/Technology/Bavituximab Antiviral/Government Sponsored Research/ 3rd Par. click on "View Poster."
Note especially Figure 4 and Figure 7. More later. Have to run.
Great post WH. Thank you.
Speaking of "data that ripens", let's not omit median OS data for the Phase II India lung and breast signal seeking trials. SK has said, "no news is good news" regarding MOS in these studies. If we get the MOS report in the last two months of 2010, it would already beat the pants off SOC and Avastin. If we don't hear MOS data until 1st QTR 2011, these startling survival times will turbo charge the effects of interim data reports for the current front line NSCLC study.
CJ-- Amazing Cotara find. Thanks so much. Lytle’s ’08 comments fit perfectly with what my friend was told at NYC conference. Also fits with why they always seem to publish major Cotara data at a Conference of Neurological Surgeons like the one last week.
It’s a very smart move for the Company to put off Cotara BP negotiations until next summer/fall when the FDA registration pathway meetings are complete. Assuming the balance of the data comes in even half as good as the 86 week median OS seen in the first 14 patients, the FDA should give them either accelerated approval or approval to do a fairly small, low-cost Phase III.
Knowing the registration pathway, especially if its accelerated approval or a low number of patients, will give the Company great leverage in negotiating a traditional BP license for a large up front fee and a substantial royalty.
My understanding (confirmed by what Lytle’s ’08 comments) is that the marketing cost of selling to the 100 or so U.S. nuclear medicine facilities run by neurosurgeons would be quite low compared to the traditional cost of penetrating the oncology market and getting oncology docs to switch away from their favorite product.
This is what Lytle meant in ’08 when he said: “In order for a patient to receive Bexxar or Zevalin, the medical oncologist literally has to hand the patient away to the radiation oncologist and the economics are taken out of the equation.” Translation: you can’t get oncologists to give away revenues to the neurosurgeons if the oncologist is the one administering the drug.
But if Bavi becomes the SOC, it will be the neurosurgeons who oversee the therapy and get the big fees. This is why SK pointed out to the Reuters reporter on Oct 18 that “He [SK] explained that a radiation/oncology group is involved in delivering the drug, but patients are being overseen by a neurosurgeon.”
The neurosurgeons would be just delighted to take the GBM therapy revenue stream away from the oncologists, and this is why Cotara data is always presented at the meetings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. It’s a small group and an easy one to market to.
The low cost of penetrating the neurological surgeons market will greatly enhance the value PPHM receives from BP for a GBM license. This same low marketing cost, if combined with FDA accelerated approval (i.e. patients pay the cost of our Phase III study), means the Company could have the leverage to tell BP they will market Cotara on their own if the don’t get a fair price.
This is the type of leverage you want going into a major negotiation. As much as I dislike the wait and all the intervening ATM sales, it was a very smart move to put off Cotara negotiations until the FDA registration pathway is know.
Happy Halloween.
Thanks WH-- Well-reasoned post. Completely agree.
Having an FDA approved registration pathway that includes accelerated/conditional approval could allow PPHM or its BP marketing partner to charge a commercial price during the conditional approval while Phase III data is being collected.
This would give the Company the leverage needed to command a 50:50 marketing alliance from BP rather than a traditional license that pays only a 10%-15% royalty. In a traditional license the BP has defacto rights to own/control product development, FDA approval and sales. In a 50:50 marketing license, PPHM would continue to control product development and sales but share 50% of the revenues with a BP in Europe and a different BP in Asia in exchange for marketing assistance and an upfront cash payment. In essence, what the BP is buying is a revenue stream, not a risky product development prospect.
About a year ago I remember hearing, from someone who spoke with SK said at a NYC conference, that such a 50:50 marketing alliance (where PPHM carries the burden for sales in a specified region like the U.S.) was possible because the neurologists and nuclear medicine Docs are in charge of administering Cotara in the U.S, not oncologists. There are only a few hundred of these neurology/nuclear medicine clinics in the U.S. and they all attend the same annual conferences, so the marketing expense of educating these sales portals is much lower than if Cotara had to be marketed to oncologists generally.
Fair point. The excuse that the securities "window" for Mgmt. buying is closed no longer applies.
As long as ATM is still in play as the Company's primary vehicle for funding the many promising clinical trails, this overhang tells brokers they still have more time to get on the boat.
Once government contract renewal arrives, or a Cotara regional license is closed based on the interim data coming out in the next few months, a sense of urgency will arrive for brokers to stake out an early position in this story.
The fund sitting on the bid today and looking to get 200K plus shares is only a few months ahead of the pack.
Geo-- I share your frustration, but I also agree with this remark from Tek's post 56984.
"IMO, we are not privy to the many goings on with this company for a number of reasons. I believe there is a large amount of science, technology and strategy that is not disclosed because of the need to protect such things from the wolves that lay in wait to steal it."
In addition to believing that wolves do lay and wait and are ready to leap on us as soon as we declare Bavi an obvious and inevitable blockbuster, I believe a second reason for PPHM's low profile has to do with SK's belief that you play all your cards to create good cred. in the medical world, and when you have that, the Wall Street crowd will follow as day follows night.
Doctors like companies with a low profile that don't overstate and hype the implications of small, non-randomized clinical studies in far away countries.
The real proof that SK has good cred. in the medical world is the rapid expansion of the double blinded NSCLC registration study to already 11 sites and on its way to 20. Oncology clinical trial opportunities are hugely competitive with BP dominating the vast majority of new clinical trial opportunities. It's a tremendous credit to Mgmt and SK's low-profile, understated approach that our flagship registration trial is off to such a fast start in the U.S.
There is nothing that will generate real, sustainable PPS value as much as completing this double blind study a.s.a.p., and that is exactly what SK's low profile approach is allowing us to do.
Truth is Geo, you are absolutely right. SK cares more about the Company's reputation in the medical world than he does about your frustration and my frustration with the share price. I happen to think these are correct priorities.
I voted the same as well and have the same opinion.
Someone I know talked to SK at the Rodman Conference in NY and was told that they are ahead of schedule on the blinded refractory NSCLC study, and on schedule with the randomized front line study.
Apparently it's easier to get refractory patients since there are few, if any, clinical trials of new drugs for refractory NSCLC patients (other than Bavi) going on at this time.
Just read the PR today. It says that all contracts must remain within the "government's maximum five-year period for contracts." Apparently there is some kind of gov't contracting rule that prohibits the 6-month evaluation period from extending the contract beyond 5 years, so they had to lop off the third year, making the total duration 4.5 years.
That's how I see it too. This is a small piece of funding to turn the corner into next gov't fiscal year. It's just enough to assure that animal studies currently in progress are not suspended while the Company and TMT plan for taking Bavi to the next level with more viral disease types and in more advanced animal models.
Of course there's always the chance that Bavi's not working and they just need the 6 months to put the final nails in the coffin. But after two years of playing with this puppy the scenario SK described in last CCs,-- i.e. we need more time to do a quality job in defining the next set of larger studies and how much they will cost -- seems more likely.
My guess is that the studies in the next round are being designed to lock down "animal rule" approval.
Double ditto
Company's confidence in Gov't contract renewal is much stronger in the CC than in the PR two weeks ago.
Perhaps others have already pointed this out, but on reading the transcript I was struck by SK's bold phrasing of the prospects for renewal of gov't contract. I guess anything could happen, but it certainly seems clear Mgmt is expecting renewal. Here are King's words:
"We will be using this time [i.e. the 45-day extension] to complete our scientific review and to plan continuing preclinical evaluation in more advanced models of VHF.
As soon as we have completed the review, finalized plans for the next preclinical studies, and have agreed with TMTI on the specifics, we will be able to provide an update on those plans moving forward under this multi-year contract."
Why would they be using this extra month to "finalize plans for the next preclinical studies" and "agree with TMTI on the specifics" unless both the TMTI and PPHM were expecting to "move forward under this multi-year contract."
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the signal SK is sending.
Exactly Sunstar. You just made the most important point of all.
Bavi works almost the same in refractory tumors as it does in front-line tumors because chemo upregulates the PS target in both cases. That's why a home run-- i.e. greater than 10% ORR-- is so feasible in these refractory patients.
Letter from Steve King to shareholders just now posted on website home page.
Mojo-- Great chart. Thanks so much. Any chance you could add an overlay showing Avastin's average tumor shrinkage in similar patients. Were the waterfall data points for Avasin shrinkage ever published?
Thank you.
The Utah State Univ lab where Bavi is being tested against VHF is the lab founded by Robert Sidwell, Ph.D., who died a few years back but was for many years America's top opinion leader in the field of anti-viral research.
Brian Gowen, Ph.D. was Dr. Sidwell's protege. You can see that 7 of the 14 publications listed on this bio page for Dr. Gowen were co-authored with Dr. Sidwell. http://www.usu.edu/advs/people/bgowen/Publications/index.html
When it comes prestige in the anti-viral research world, it doesn't get any better than the team that Dr. Sidwell built at Utah State Univ., which is now headed by Dr. Gowen.
IR just now confirmed that the Company is already making plans "for the next set of studies under this [TMTI] contract."
Subsequent to my phone call with IR this morning, I emailed the Company with this question:
"The PR today announces that the base period has been extended by 45 days to "finalize plans" to continue preclinical evaluation of Bavi in animal models.
Does this mean the Company is confident that TMTI funding will be renewed?
If the Company is not confident that TMTI funding will be renewed, could you please explain why the Company will be using the next 45 days to "finalize plans" for more VHF anti-viral studies?
Thanks for your help with this question."
After the market closed I found this reply in my inbox:
"We’re completing the scientific review and continuing the preclinical evaluation of bavituximab in more advanced models of VHF. We will keep you posted as we complete these activities and plan for the next set of studies under this contract.
Best regards,
Amy"
Yes, I bought more today. When you combine the BioDefense Conference a few weeks ago presenting PPHM as one of the gov't's leading contractors for broad spectrum anti-viral work, with today's announcement that the Gov't and PPHM needed an extra 45 days "to finalize plans for continuing" VHF animal studies, it's clear to me that Company Management is expecting the TMTI grant money to be renewed and are planning on it.
Now it's not over till the fat lady sings and we all know there can be big surprises in the gov't contract arena at the last minute, so today's PR needed to use a certain amount of nuance and ambiguity in expressing the Company's confidence in the renewal of VHF funding.
In speaking with I.R. today, my interpretation of the PR was not dismissed. They did explain that you have to be extremely careful in dealing with PRs related to gov't work. Overstepping what has actually been decided is a good way to kill the deal.
If what's actually been decided and confirmed is that PPHM and the Gov't need an extra 45 days "to finalize plans for continuing" preclinical VHF studies-- that's good enough for me to pick up some more shares.
Of course my optimism is also based on the high chance of seeing an Avid BioSimilars PR and an IST launch PR in the same 45 day period.
I am not worried about having our TMTI contract renewed. Has anyone else posted yet about the June 14 BioDefense Conference where Melina Soares Ph.D. gave a featured update at 3:00 pm on Bavi's progress against 3 hemorrhagic fevers:
http://www.infocastinc.com/downloads_pdf/biodef10_symp.pdf
Pre-Conference Symposium
Monday, June 14, 2010
Developments in Biodefense Technology Platforms
A Briefing from Leading Biodefense Researchers
Phosphatidylserine-Targeting Broad Spectrum Antibodies for
the Treatment of Hemorrhagic Fever Virus Infections
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals Inc. and it academic collaborators are
developing broad spectrum anti-viral agents. These anti-viral
monoclonal antibodies target anionic phospholipids such as
phosphatidylserine (PS) which become exposed on the surface of
virus-infected cells and egressed virions. The antibodies exert their
anti-viral effect via clearance of circulating virus and destruction
of virus-infected cells by antibody-dependent cell-mediated
cytotoxicity. We present data supporting the use of PS-targeting
antibodies against members of three major hemorrhagic fever virus
families including Pichinde virus and Junin virus (Arenaviridae),
Punta Toro virus (a model for Rift Valley fever virus,
Bunyaviridae family) and yellow fever virus (Flaviviridae).
Melina Soares, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas
... Sure it may kill any Russell spike but it will not sink the stock either. Let's give them some credit. ... and this may be just the right way, and just the right time, to get rid of the "going concern" qualification that everyone was moaning about just a month ago.
PD-- You are correct. Money raised between today and the day the CPA firm signs their cover letter that accompanies PPHM's filing with the SEC of its year-end financials on approx. July 10, is money that counts toward the "going concern" determination.
Excellent post, KT. Thank you.
Nicely presented Sunstar. Thanks for that important reminder.
I admit to being half monkey myself (as in Entdoc's post just before this one). I was very impressed when the breast data first came out, but since no media articles made whoopie about it, I let it slip out of mind-- instead thinking about the upcoming Avid biosimilar news, upcoming IST trials and upcoming gov't contracts-- and already forgetting about the staggering data presented at ASCO.
Amazing how easy it is for even those like me who follow this stock closely to slip into the heard mentality.
... but I bet in-house BP scientists and the IST docs casting about for the next big therapy that could put their clinic on the map are not as much monkey as me.
Good point Mojo-- The beauty of the IST program is that in just 6-9 months from now we will have well-respected U.S. cancer research clinics bragging about the interim data coming out of their Bavi trials on various tumor types-- and that will really up the pressure on Roche and other BPs to make a serious bid.
We won't have to wait for the Company's blinded registration trial to end before the action starts.
By summer of 2011, one year from now, there will be interim data coming in from half a dozen IST trials. Does anyone really think BP plans to wait until all the proof is in before they start the serious bidding.
:)
I bet your #3 and #4 are the same.
IMO Duke will be the IST collaborator for the upcoming HIV trial. After all they have invested in anti-PS research these last 3 years, they are not going to let the fame pass to a different institution.
Thanks DIA. Interesting to connect the dots between two events we can now see on the horizon:
1. An IST HIV Bavi trial using the latest aerosol delivery modalities ... and
2. The $17 million per-year per-company grant of NIAID money for broad spectrum therapeutic AV drugs that will be announced in July 2011. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=366b7efd034485b9a6121b2eb92e6571&tab=core&_cview=0
This official notice says the NIAID award will be made just 13 months from now. That's just enough time to allow NIAID to see some results from the PPHM/IST Bavi-aerosol HIV trial and then start pouring big money into broader clinical trials of this new immuno-therapy paradigm.
Sweet :) :)
Great find C.J. Looks like plans for new anti-viral trials are underway. I wonder when that addition was made to the website pipeline.
Can someone find BOT's last post. Didn't he say something about the next Bavi AV trial being with HIV ?
Mojo-- Your reference to the DCR article is much appreciated. Just a few weeks ago I was unsuccessful in trying to locate this important study.
But I am still confused how you determine that DCR at week 8 was 100%. Seems to me from looking at Fig 2 that at week 8 (i.e. 56 days) only about 85% were progression free. But I am looking at the solid line in the middle and you may be looking at the dashed line at the top. I admit that I don't understand this 95% Confidence Interval concept. Can you explain it?
In any event, whether DCR is 100% or 85% at week 8, I agree with you that this sentence from the DCR abstract is a key to understanding the importance of Bavi's Ph II results reported today:
"In light of the reality that many more tumors achieve nonprogression than response, we hypothesized that the rate of nonprogression, also termed the disease control rate (DCR) is a stronger predictor of clinical benefit than traditional tumor response rate (the sum of complete response [CR] and PR) after platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC."
Lurker, I agree. The bars in Fig 1 show the maximum tumor remission achieved by each of the patients at the time of the first scans. But subsequent scans showed some degree of progression in these tumors.
IMO, the really significant news in the lung trial is that the Company more than doubled the OR of C&P alone. This is significant because SK has said that the PS target in the refractory tumors in the Ph IIB registration trial will be upregulated / increased just the same as in front line tumors. The tumor cells may be resistent to the chemo but the chemo still increases the amount of PS on the outer cell membrane just as it did in this front line Ph II trial where we saw 43% OR.
All of this is significant because the standard we have to beat in the new Ph IIB registration trial for refractory tumors is only 6%.
We don't know whether the FDA is looking for Bavi to show OR rates in these refractory tumors of 12%, 15%, 20% or what. But we do know that the FDA granted accelerated approval to Iressa for NSCLC on a showing of just 10% OR in third line refractory patients. See the eighth paragraph of this article: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=23250
Iressa did not prove to have the same efficacy in the market place in subsequent testing, so the FDA withdrew approval of the drug. But the Iressa story gives us some idea of what kind of OR we will need to get accelerated approval in the current Ph IIB registration trial.
My guess, based on the Iressa experience, is that the 43% OR reported this weekend at ASCO could fall to 15% in refractory patients and accelerated approval would be granted. 15% would be more than double the 6% currently achievable with SOC in refractory patients.
Posters for the two breast trials reported at ASCO today are now up on the PPHM website under "Oncology --> Technology Overview" at:
http://www.peregrineinc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=45
It's especially important to see the tumor shrinkage reported for each patient in the trial in the bar graph in Fig. 1.
Since strong Response Rates are a huge indicator of long Survival Times, looks like we're going to be waiting quite a while before median Overal Survival times get reported. :) :) :) :) :)
Someone who is better than me with graphics should post on I-Hub the Fig.1 image from both posters reported today. For example, I read the chart to say that in the Bavi plus P&C trial, 40% of the patients experienced tumor shrinkage greater than 75% !!!
Lurker-- Good point about Avastin's failure with squamous cell tumors.
Here is the link to the official report on Avastin's Phase II results compared to C&P alone: http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/reprint/22/11/2184
As you will see, the results from Avastin's 30-patient arm at the higher dose level (15mg/kg) had serious toxicity problems and adverse events. In the lower dosage arm (7.5 mg/kg) PFS was only 4.3 months and OS was a mere 11.6 months-- which is not even as good as C&P alone which achieved OS of 14.9 mos by itself without Avastin.
What will be most interesting is to look at two things when the ASCO posters are published on the PPHM website over the weekend.
First, as others have noted, look at the number of Bavi patients who achieved ORR greater than 60% or greater than 80% since this is a huge predictor of OS times. Hopefully this data will be included in the poster.
Second, look at the toxicity and AE (Adverse Event) data. If Bavi avoids the serious toxicity issues that plagued all Avastin squamous cell patients and plagued those Avastin patients receiving the higher 15mg dose (i.e. the dose level that resulted in OR 32%, PFS 7.4% and OS 17.7 mos as reported in C.J.'s post 51454), then Bavi is looking very good indeed.
If you read the official Avastin results, especially toxicity, in the paper at the link noted above, you will understand why the PR today compares Bavi to C&P alone and not to Avastin plus C&P.
The SEC rules regarding 8K filings are not complicated. Those rules say a company has to file its PR as an 8K whenever the PR contains "material" information.
Automatically all companies file all quarterly financial reports (i.e. the PR that comes out on the morning of the CC) as 8Ks because quarterly balance sheet and income information is always deemed material.
Once you get beyond quarterly financials, it is in the Company's discretion to determine when a PR contains "material" information.
The 8K was filed on yesterday's PR simply because the Company recognizes that such high tumor remission rates, or ORR, are exceptionally good news.
If more people paid attention to Mojo's post 51150 and understood the strong correlation between high tumor response rates and high overall survival rates, they would understand why the Company is so excited about today's data.
This was clearly "material" news even though it will take the market a while to "get it."
Several weeks ago I asked IR who would pay for IST trials. The answer I got was that in all cases PPHM donates the antibody and in some cases they will make cash payments to cover some of the trial costs.
But in many cases the investigator is already doing cancer research under various grants and wants to make a name for his clinic and is in a position to pick up a large or a small portion of the trial costs.
The impression I got from IR is that it all depends on how good the Ph II data is. If the Ph II data is exciting, the better known research docs at the better known clinics are eager to be first in line as IST investigators and are willing to pick up a significant part of the cost. In many cases these IST trials are only 15-25 patients, so the costs are not huge regardless of the split between the IST and the Company.
My other question to IR concerned release of IST data. I was told that, since these trials are open label, the investigators are free to release interim data and often do so quickly because a major reason they do these trials is to put their clinic on the map!
Gendel Lindheim BioCom Partners ARE GONE
Did anyone else notice that the PR today was from Amy Figueroa, the new in-house PR lady.
Gendel was missing from the PR today and is no longer listed on the Company's website under "Investors-- Contact Us."
Here is my thought on share price: The manipulator who drove it down in order to buy more shares will keep it down for three days (thru Tuesday) in order to trigger margin calls. His timing was perfect. Just soon enough to scare the pants off anyone who might have bought on the Abstract news... and still 2 weeks before ASCO and one week before the Rusell reset, so enough time to accumulate a position while most investors hang on the sidelines in fear of another terrorist bomb.
Here is my thought on the Abstract data: If you have 2 CRs (i.e. 100% remission) in the breast cancer patients, that means many of the other patients had partial remissions that were quite high, like 60%, 70% or 80%. There is a direct and well established correlation between high remissions and Overall Survival rates. When we see the PR Monday morning after ASCO reporting the actual number of patients who had remissions greater than 70%, it will be easy for knowledgeable investors to infer that that the Survival rate will beat Avastin.
Thales-- Nice little piece of history. Thank you.
I view the ATM as another instrument of "economic technology." It's saving PPHM from doing more PIPES. Doing a PIPE is the equivalent of the French using their gold to buy ships.
More on Jeff Kraws at Crystal Research.
Check out this link for a sampling of the venues where Jeff Kraws is invited to speak out on important developments in biotech and health care. He is clearly a leading figure in our industry. This partial sampling shows he did 17 TV presentations in the last year that were picked up by YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/user/crystalrsch
Now that he has done his due diligence on PPHM, he'll be ready to present the story on CNBC and Bloomberg as the clinical data rolls in this summer and fall.
For many years Mr. Kraws was a top-ranked bio/pharma analyst. He is quoted often in Barrons.
Can't imagine a better media-connected opinion leader to have on the PPHM team as this Company steps on to institutional radar screens and the national media stage.
Jeff Kraws, CEO of Crystal Research, is a gate keeper / opinion leader who gives the nod that gets biotech companies covered on CNBC, Bloomberg etc. Here is his Bio from the Crystal website:
"Previously, Mr. Kraws served as a managing director of healthcare research for Ryan Beck & Co., and as director of research/senior pharmaceutical analyst and managing director at Gruntal & Co., LLC (prior to its merger with Ryan Beck & Company). Mr. Kraws served as managing director of the healthcare research group and senior pharmaceutical analyst at First Union Securities (formerly EVEREN Securities); as senior U.S. pharmaceutical analyst for the Swedish-Swiss conglomerate Asea Brown Boveri; and as managing director and president of the Brokerage/Investment Banking operation of ABB Aros Securities, Inc. He also served as senior pharmaceutical analyst at Nationsbanc Montgomery Securities, BT Alex Brown & Sons, and Buckingham Research. Mr. Kraws also has industry experience, having been responsible for competitive analysis within the treasury group at Bristol-Myers-Squibb Company."
The Crystal Report serves two important purposes:
First, it's a great consolidation of all the key information analysts and science writers need to understand about the Company before they write their articles. The timing couldn't be better putting out a comprehensive overview like this just before ASCO, the launch of the BioSimilars program and the start of the IST trials. Think of it as a single document media writers can go to that summarizes clearly the Company's last 100 press releases.
Second, the Report gave Jeff Kraws a framework for conducting his own due diligence on PPHM. He is not a whore. His checking and compilation of factual data in the biotech world is well respected.