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.
Speaking of fungus, I did meet another leukemia patient who could have been killed by a fungus. At another institute she was diagnosed with it, but also they believed something they were seeing in a vital organ was caused by the leukemia. She came to City of Hope where my Dr. didn't agree, they sampled what was in that organ, found it to be a fungus. They cured the fungus before giving the chemo that would have knocked out her immune system prior to a stem cell transplant. Had that not been done, with the immune system eliminated, the fungus would have gone wild and killed the patient. I really like City of Hope because they're so through. I've met several people given up for dead years or decades ago there.
I'm sure there are many other places that offer great cancer care, but I doubt that many will go as far for patients as they do, including personalized drugs. I suspect that in the future, more treatment will be personalized, it still may require chemo, but they too may be personalized to be more effective, and have lesser side effects. I don't know that cancer will ever be totally cured, but treatment will be greatly improved.
Gary
Thanks Marzan,
I did have an interesting discussion about fungus toenails the other day. A retired doctor friend was telling us that none of the currently marketed cures were that effective. I told him one cure I didn't recommend, but it worked, leukemia. I don't know which of the chemos cured the fungus, but I had one nail for years that now looks just like all the others.
Frankly I cannot say the nail was cured by one specific chemo, it was quite gradual, and I don't think it was completely cured before the stem cell transplant, but the nail seems to be completely cured.
Gary
Thanks,
My Doctor was working on CAR-T developed at City of Hope and told me he hoped I'd never need them. I happened to meet a man who had stem cells the same day I did, then CAR-T 3 days later. His cells were his own, so he was only coming in every other week at a time when I was still coming in twice a week. He'd come out of remission from a prior stem cell transplant after several years, putting him back into remission and doing stem cells, and CAR-T all using his own cells will hopefully give him a permanent remission. During the administration of the CAR-T's his temperature at one point hit 107, that was the biggest risk, and something my Dr. hoped to never put me through.
It's now roughly 4.5 years since I got the stem cells, I don't know if what they're doing with CAR-T's have advanced that much, but at that time my Dr. indicated the shortcomings were both the high temperature, and the fact that their effect was over a limited period of time. If the disease was eliminated while in the effective period it's great, but if not the disease could recur. I believe they're making strides, but it still has a long way to go.
I could be wrong, but as I gather it, they still need to bring a patient into remission before stem cells and CAR-T can be applied. That remission is often a big part of the problem, especially if you come out of a prior remission. My original oncologist wasn't pushing stem cells, but he had me go for other opinions, I learned that my chances of staying in remission were only about 30% at 3 years without stem cells. He thought if I came out they could put me into remission and do it, but one of the Drs. I spoke with told me a second remission was often much harder, and sometimes impossible to achieve. He told me of a much younger patient than me who'd chosen that course, and he really didn't know if they could save her. I will probably stay on chemo the rest of my life, not because I absolutely have to, but it lessens the likelihood that I come out of remission. Perhaps at some point a new chemo that has lesser side effect will replace what I'm on, but what I've got is an acceptable quality of life with it.
Gary
I agree with you and am happy to hear that the fire fight appears to be going well. What I'm uncertain about is whether we'll get any pre-announcement of when top line, or complete results will be announced, I believe it's possible that the next quarterly report could provide some guidance.
I wish you luck in the coming months, as a Northridge graduate I know how windy it can be out there. Back then we didn't have the sort of forecasting we do today. I hate to say how many sweltering days we headed for Zuma Beach only to find it cool and cloudy, we always thought it to be our bad luck. Now I live near the beach and rather like the fact that it's rarely in the 80's here, even when it's sunny. Today is one of the warmest in the year for us, but it's pleasant indoors without A/C. As a kid I lived in Studio City and the hills above Sherman Oaks, but IMHO valley heat has become far more humid over the years.
I hope it's not too smoky out there, here on the coast we've had little wind. As a sailor, I've been out during Santa Ana events where it was totally calm at sea, but once I was caught in an event where 75 knots was seen just off the coast at the worst, it's the only time I've taken green water over the boat.
Gary
I'd like the opinion of some of our experts on this. I'm of the belief that cancers mutate over time, building up a defense to what they're being treated with. If this is the case, would it be best to only create a limited number of months supply, when creating DCVax-Direct, and create new vaccine after so many months to compensate for the changes that may be occurring in the cancer.
While much the same might be said about DCVax-L, but the only way to do that would be if after surgery the tumor grew back into an operable mass again, and was again removed. As I see it, in that DCVax-Direct is made with leukapheresis, that can be done routinely and the Direct product can be produced at any time. Another question might be, if after surgery no tumor is detectable, would it still be beneficial to inject DCVax-Direct at the original site of the tumor to go after anything that remains that's too small to detect.
Someone brought up the idea of using the technology on blood borne cancers. As a leukemia patient it's certainly something I'm interested in, but I'm curious if it's thought that DCVax-Direct in it's current form would work. Clearly DCVax-L couldn't be made, as there is no mass to be removed surgically. If DCVax-Direct were made, would it be transfused into the blood, or would an attempt be made to get it into the marrow. In my treatment, a small marrow sample was once taken, but after that all treatment either came by I.V., shot, or pill. At no time did they attempt to put something directly into the marrow.
By the way, some people still think bone marrow is transplanted, requiring going into the marrow. It's really stem cells, and they can be harvested from the blood in a manner like leukapheresis, and when they're transfused they simply come in through the same I.V. that's used for everything else. In my case, because my stem cells were harvested and preserved cryogenically, a Hickman catheter was used as the preservative used for preserving the stem cells require a larger diameter catheter than what's installed in your arm. Over my treatment period I had a few catheters installed, and had infections in both the regular and Hickman catheter that required further treatment. In the case of the catheter in my arm, when the catheter was withdrawn, you could actually see where it had been in an ultrasound that showed how the infection had grown right on the side of the catheter. That first catheter infection actually saved me several courses of chemo as while I was off the chemo while treating the infection I went to City of Hope where they had a different course of treatment in mind that only used pill chemo in preparing me for the stem cells.
Gary
In the past, I've seen the initiation of partnerships and/or clinical news that trading patterns indicated that someone was trading on the anticipated news, but I've seen even more where nothing in the prior days trading indicated that anything was coming. Certainly, when a company say's they're presenting at a certain conference, there may be greater interest around that conference, but where no reason was provided for anticipating something happen, it was a mixed bag before the announcement.
Certainly on news there will be a dramatic increase in volume, but the fewer current shareholders willing to sell, the higher the price should go. I would encourage current shareholders not to trade on the initial news, wait to see new highs, then think about it. If the numbers reach what you believe is unrealistic for this point in the companies development, then think about trading.
Without knowing what the news will be, I cannot say what a realistic trading range would be, but I doubt it would be above a market cap of a few billion in the immediate future. That's certainly not the potential, double and even triple digit billions are possible if the company isn't bought out over the next decade if current products are approved for multiple cancers. This won't happen overnight, but the fact that it could happen gives it that sort of potential.
Gary
We're living at a time when a penny move up is a good day, that's today. I don't believe it will be that long before good days will be dimes, then it won't take that much longer that it becomes quarters, virtually more than we're selling for now. That's not to say that on news we couldn't see a dollar or more, but that will be exceptional news driven days, but after those days, with no additional news, we'll see dime and quarter days that follow. Sure there will also be down days, but as long as the good and exceptional days outnumber the down ones, we'll be very well off.
Gary
I understand there are at least 200 compounds tphat can be extracted from cannabis, most formulations ignore all except CBD and THC.
I suspect the way it's possible to gain a patent is with a formula that's very precise, it only makes the product of the specified compound extracted from the plant, no more, no less. It would require breaking it down to its individual components then using only what's in the formulation.
I suspect that there may be benefits in many of the compounds outside of CBD and THC, but little has been done to determine precisely what the benefits are. I don't know if OWCP is breaking it down the fine, but if they do, and if they can produce a precise formulation that produces excellent results in certain diseases, then I believe they have something that can be patented.
My back is still bothering me post surgery, and among other things I tried a generic CBD pain cream. Honestly I cannot say it had no benefit, but I couldn't say with certainty that it did, or didn't, as my degree of pain normally increases and decreases throughout the day. It hasn't resulted in my using it frequently. I suspect it might be better if it contained THC and perhaps other things, but I'd really like someone to create a formulation that was actually in clinical trials and FDA approved, that's something I'd really like to give a trial.
Gary
With absolutely no news between now and the end of the year, no telling how low the price may go. With news, depending on what the news is, no telling how high it may go. I'm certainly looking forward to news this year, but if it's not till next year, I believe investors will be well rewarded by the news.
Gary
You may be right, but if that were the case, I'd think that knowing what they already know about the trial they could submit a criteria that they were absolutely sure they would beat. If the FDA had qualms after they proved they beat it, they'd answer that they had accepted the criteria. I suspect the FDA doesn't want to make it that easy for them.
I believe we've all seen the FDA delay the approval of drugs that ultimately became blockbusters. Without a partner they know companies like NWBO can hardly afford such delays so their action often push companies into partnerships made out of weakness, rather than strength. BP wins by waiting out the process with the cooperation of the FDA.
NWBO's should be in a strong position after top line results are revealed, but they'll be weakened dramatically if there are delays before a BP partnership materializes, or the drug is approved. Clearly substantial additional funding will be needed for further trials, if it's not from a partner it would have to be dilution, but hopefully at a dramatically higher price.
Gary
I agree with your thinking in general, but I also believe the lead clinician has a great deal of influence. I also believe that the FDA and other authorities won't put a stamp of approval on the SAP, but they will discuss it with the company, do you think they'd be wise to submit it after one of those authorities suggested a change.
I do believe the day will come when after incorporating suggested changes they won't sit down for more, and the SAP will be submitted, but I don't know that they're that frustrated yet. On more than one occasion I've seen the FDA ask for something additional after a BLA or NDA was submitted after their full six month review period. What they asked for sometimes could be provided almost immediately, at other times it required an additional trial, regardless, it was answered. Six month later, after the FDA's review, they asked something that was totally unrelated to the first question. My point is, they can cause delays in drugs thought to be sure things, but occasionally they go the other way and approve something that most believe is marginal at best.
Someone knowing what the FDA was going to do could make a lot of money on either the long or short side, as long as they had reliable information.
Of course the FDA doesn't always take every last day of the time they're allowed to make a decision, but it's said they could take 6 months to decide how to hard boil eggs, as could Congress, so it's rare that anything happens quickly there.
Gary
As technology goes, I believe that use of cannabis in medicine is still in it's infancy. As it matures, I believe BP will get in with both feet, and better products will result. Over time I suspect that certain drugs will have components from cannabis as well as medications that may currently exist, or might not be developed for years.
The first thing that needs to happen still requires the Federal Govt. to remove the impediments to this happening, but when they do, watch how BP jumps in. I certainly believe that OWCP is doing things that will attract BP to consider buying them, the only question is, at what price.
Gary
Please correct me if anything I'm suggesting is wrong. I believe that if in time DCVax-Direct is determined to have benefits in treating many cancers, the way cancer's treated in the future might be dramatically changed as follows.
First, on discovery of a tumor, operable or not, leukapheresis and the creation of DCVax-Direct will be the first thing that happens, shortly followed by the tumor being injected with Direct. While surgical options are explored, additional injections may be undertaken.
If the cancer is operable, as much as possible will be removed, and DCVax-L will be created using the tumor. The DCVax-L will be administered routinely, and if an additional mass is found, it will be injected directly with Direct. In the meantime, other treatments found effective will be utilized as well.
My point is to get direct into the tumor, so if there are mets existing prior to surgery, Direct can be killing them off from the point it's initially introduced. Adding the L post surgery is an opportunity to get to anything remaining anywhere, whether Direct reached it, or not.
I'm not saying this will be the case, but if it is, this just might be the first company with just one or two approved products that does achieve a triple digit billion dollar market cap if it isn't bought out.
If this approach isn't taken, once surgery is done on an untreated tumor should any mets exist, you no longer have a common place to inject that reaches all the mets. Certainly the DCVax-L made using the tumor mass may be effective, but while you can create DCVax-Direct at any time, you do not have a mass to inject it into until one grows large enough to get into, and there may be many such masses. I'm no expert, I know the trials are not being run this way, at least not yet, but doesn't it seem like the logical way of treating various cancers as long as both DCVax-L and Direct are determined to be of benefit in those cancers.
Cost is always a consideration, but if this treatment actually led to cures in a greater percentage of patients, it might actually save overall, in spite of higher costs up front.
I suspect that if our healthcare removes the accountants and permits Doctors to do what they deem best, costs over time will come down as while the Doctors may use more expensive treatment up front, it will be more effective and lead to greater numbers of cures. Today the accountants insisting on trying cheaper treatment first often prolong treatment to the point that costs go up dramatically, and may result in loss of life if a condition worsens so much to the lessor treatment that the better treatment can no longer control it. JMHO.
Gary
I didn't keep track of her presentations. As I remember it, I didn't expect she'd do a major revelation at the conference, but she could update the numbers from a prior presentation, which should be a positive.
I frankly cannot say if between SNO and ASCO there is a conference where the company will want to present the complete data if it cannot be done at SNO. I know there are all sorts of conferences, but after over a decade in trials, the clinicians and companies like to present their findings a major events.
I know there are several such conferences annually, I just don't know all where GBM will get substantial attention.
Gary
SNO is one month from now. A quick look at the website shows Dr. Liau participating in the preparation of a few different presentations, but not the presenter in any. I really cannot say what will be revealed there, but I still believe that some sort of information will come from there.
Gary
Thanks, I do have a few shares in a TDA account, but far more at Fidelity.
I can live with how Fidelity does business, I think I'll have a few days to move once news becomes available, depending on how the information is rolled out.
I believe before all is said and done, we'll get major stories on the networks and major newspapers. If I'm right about that, no telling how high the price could go before it settles back to perhaps a few billion in market cap, that might be sustained.
It's been quite awhile, but I can remember when a story in the NY Times took ENMD to over $100 before it settled back down to single digits over time, and that was on the power of curing mice with cancer. Today investors sometimes yawn at curing cancer, so you never really know how a stock will react, but I do believe we'll warrant at least prices in excess of $1.
Gary
I just learned that Fidelity will not permit me to put in an order above $2 with the shares selling at current prices. I won't put in an order at this time, but once it's above $1 I'll see what they will permit. I thought about a small $2 order, but frankly decided I wouldn't want even a few share to be sold there.
What have others found at the brokerages they're working with.
Gary
I haven't done this yet myself, but I think you're being wise wrt what could happen on news. On more than one occasion I've seen news push a stock to prices that cannot possibly be sustained, and selling a little at that price may permit you to purchase far more when reality creeps back in.
On positive news with the price where it is today, there will be a rush to get in with essentially no due diligence. Even if the stock moves to well over a dollar, people just hearing about results will see it as very cheap, perhaps the same will apply at $5 or even $10. Eventually investors will recognize that nearly a billion shares are outstanding, and while a market cap of a billion or two is justified, $10 billion isn't yet justified, and the price will correct. It would be nice to buy back 2 or 3 shares for every share you sold, and still have money in your pocket. If emotion truly takes hold of the stock for awhile, I certainly intend to sell some of my position, and plan to buy back more than I sell, but put a lot more than that back in my pocket.
Of course there always is a risk, if some company is truly looking to buy the company, if it did reach over a $10 billion market cap on emotion, it's not impossible that it could be bought out for $20 billion at that time. Short term the purchaser may have overpaid, but that organization knows what it will be worth in time, and knowing what the company wanted, decided to meet that demand, rather than wait, and perhaps have competition.
If both DCVax-L and Direct prove beneficial in multiple cancers, they could easily be worth $100 billion in market cap to whoever purchases the company. It won't happen instantly, but a decade from now earnings from these vaccines could easily justify a $100 billion market cap, perhaps substantially more than that.
Gary
I cannot say if investors will vote on a buyout, or if management controls so many shares that such a vote is unnecessary, but one thing I'm reasonably certain of, the premium on a buyout won't be significantly over a double of the current market cap, and much more likely far less than that.
If the buyout was to be done at $20 billion, it's likely the market cap at the time would be around $15 billion. The point is, we'll already have become quite successful before any such buyout could possibly come. At that point, the question is, they buyout price may be one that could take years to achieve, but once achieved, it wouldn't stop moving up, would the majority want out, or would they rather take the longer term view of even greater growth.
I believe that as long as the premium is at least 40% above the share price at the time, and it's in double digit billions, investors will choose the buyout. At today's prices I doubt if even a 1000% premium would gain the support of many investors, so it's all a matter of timing.
As long as the top line data looks good, our market cap should grow to half a billion or more, that's where we'd begin to grow from. The full data should send us higher, let's say to the billion plus market cap. A partnership would boost the market cap dramatically, and if the partner takes an equity position, the price the partner pays per share should establish a new trading range.
For talking purposes, let's say a partner agrees to purchasing 10% of the shares in the company for $3 to $5 a share. Depending on the O/S that should put the market cap somewhere between $3 billion, and $8 billion as by that time all warrants, etc. should be cashed in. If our O/S was up to 1 billion shares, a $5 partnership price would give us a $5 billion market cap. If after this time a BLA was filed, and at the same time more data was available for DCVax-Direct that looked real positive, perhaps the share price would reach $10 or more. That would put us at a price where a $20 billion buyout could be a consideration. If you look at timing for the above, it's not impossible for all this to happen by the first half of next year, but it also could take substantially longer.
I believe the key is more data on DCVax-Direct, and I really have no feel for when that could become reality. I do not see a $20 billion offer if nothing more is known about Direct, even though all that's known to date is positive.
Gary
Kam,
The KITE buyout was at a 29% gain over it's market cap, which was noted to have been swollen, that's essentially making my point. We could get a buyout at any time and at any price, but first we need to see our share price grow to a major percentage of the buyout price.
In KITE's case they were buying into what they were doing in CAR-T technology. It's not impossible that the same sort of thing could happen here if our vaccines are seen to be the answer to the treatment of many cancers. I don't know how that happens without further data, but I suppose anything is possible.
I believe that a buyout of $20 billion would need a market cap of nearly $15 billion, it could all happen in a big hurry, but it needs to happen before someone would possibly come forward with such an offer.
Gary
Thanks Marzan,
I think it's very possible that enough shares are held by Insiders that as long as they're in agreement, a vote isn't required to do anything. I've been in similar companies before where things normally requiring a vote went without a formal vote because Insiders held control. That probably is the case here, at least currently.
In companies where they didn't have control, I've seen investors decline on things like reverse splits, not because their could have been benefits, but because they wanted them totally open ended. A 1 for 5 or perhaps 10 would probably have been agreed on, but not one where the worst case was authorizing up to one for five hundred.
Whether a vote is required, or not, I don't believe that management will sell out investors with a low ball offer. As long as the data is a good as we believe, if we're bought out, investors will be satisfied.
Gary
No I don't mean to suggest anything like that. What I'm saying is that once the price has risen to roughly half of what she'd consider in a sale, she could get into negotiations that led to an offer she might consider.
Personally I would hope that that level is a stock price of at least $5 or more. A partnership, on the other hand, could come at practically any time the partner can review the trial data, depending on the terms of the partnership. Such a partnership might boost the share price to nearly the price needed for a buyout.
I have no idea how quickly the right price could come, but I believe the company would want a figure that's high enough to need some evidence as to how DCVax-Direct should be valued. I can remember when a million seemed like a lot of money, now we talk about billions like we used to talk about millions. Remember a billion is one thousand millions.
Something we all should realize is that under confidentiality agreements, a potential partner or buyer may be privy to information not yet available to investors. I.E. they could see the data immediately on unblinding, even before top line data was summarized and released.
Gary
If a company wants to partner on terms acceptable to them, the best way is to be strong enough that they don't need such a partnership. BP loves nothing more than buying tiny cash starved biotechs for a song, being able to go it alone if necessary make it possible to partner, or be bought out on terms acceptable to nearly all. Someone will always say they wanted more, but any of the numbers I've heard from others here would be perfectly acceptable to me.
The thing investors need to realize is that you don't get a multi-billion dollar buyout when the market cap is a few hundred millions. A buyout might be a double or more than the current price, but it won't be tens or hundreds of times that price. Trial results can take us into billions, then we'll be positioned for possibly a double digit billion offer.
Gary
I would suspect the company would want to do a release of top line data before it's discussion at a conference, but it could happen essentially simultaneously. Top line data typically isn't more than a few paragraphs summarizing what they've seen in the trial. If it were released, Dr. Liau could discuss more than a few paragraphs would communicate, but it still should be substantially less than would be shown in a full data presentation at a conference like SNO.
If you should be right on this occurring, the companies presentation at SNO will almost certainly be one that gets very high attendance.
All of this is now just a matter of weeks away, pretty soon we'll be able to count the days. If things go our way, the decimal point on the share price could move one place, or more, to the right. If we're wrong, and results are further delayed, I don't believe the downside risk is very great, and a positive presentation at SNO could move the stock up substantially, even if it's clear it won't be unblinded real near term. Hopefully they'll provide some guidance on when it will be there, or perhaps in the next quarterly report.
Gary
First I'd like to thank Milo for publishing his trip findings, even if he's soured a bit since then. I cannot say that I noted anywhere that they lied about what they're trying to do, but I only scanned what was said.
Secondly I'm of the belief that one picture, or perhaps 2, can replace thousands of words if that picture were before, and after views of someone with severe psoriasis, and the improvement were dramatic after using OWCP's cream. Yes, they currently don't own the intellectual property, but if they prove it works, they're more likely able to get it as others will help fund their efforts.
Perhaps equally important, they'll have a product that's demonstrated efficacy, not simply one claiming it. With or without a patent, people will buy a product that's been demonstrated to work.
Much the same can't be said for other products, the benefits aren't something that can simply be photographed. If the sublingual tablet benefits people with PTSD, it will take testimonials, lots of them, to convince others of it's benefits. They're clearly showing that vaping may be dangerous, smoking has always been suspect, our sublingual tablet may simply prove a very safe, and effective way of administering a wide variety of doses of the many various components found in cannabis.
While I'm not purchasing more at these bargain basement prices, I'm also not giving up. I hope it's not long before we see the pictures, or hear the reports on how certain products work.
Gary
Of course you could be right, if there is no positive news. Of course if there is positive news, it could be $6, or $10, or $60 depending on just how positive that news is.
For the DOD a $100 million procurement is small, but for a company like PSTI, such a procurement would be huge, even if it's only the tip of the iceberg as far as the potential goes. I'm not saying they'll get a $100 million order from the DOD, or a $1 million order, or $1 billion, but news of any order will largely tell the tale that we're headed for better days.
Of course it doesn't take sales, solid trial data would also be a big catalyst for stock price growth. There is no telling what will cause a stock to take off, but one thing that would make positive news send it through the roof is the tiny number of shares available. Sure they can issue more, but 15 million shares currently available could certainly cause those wanting in to bid up the price they're willing to pay.
With the right story there are Institutions who'd want to buy hundreds of thousands to millions of shares, but they simply aren't available. I'm sure that at the right price the company would be willing to sell some more, but I hope they wait for the market to value those shares before they do, after the positive news is out that they know will be coming.
Gary
You're no different than the majority of us. I only hope that eventually the Institutions that largely control the market will select one of more of the companies I've invested in to raise them to the skies. Of course that decision will partly come what the company does, but with two comparable companies, the Institutions may push one to many times the market cap of the other in spite of comparable results.
I don't believe they can hold NWBO down after successful trial results, but they can greatly affect how high it may go, and how long it may stay there.
Gary
$60, with only 15 million shares outstanding, amounts to a $.9 billion market cap. It's really not that high if something really big were to occur. I cannot say it will happen, but it's really not beyond the realms of possibilities.
I don't know if FDA approvals are possible next year, or in 2021, but I believe that by 2022 at least one, and possibly two drug approvals are likely. Then the question becomes, how much in earnings could these drugs generate. I believe both have blockbuster potential probably many times over. Certainly by that time we'll no longer have only 15 million shares outstanding, it's also very possible we'll have partners, or possibly have been bought out. If we're not bought out, by that time it's very possible that our market cap reaches double digit billions. Let's say it's $10 billion, and lets say our O.S. is over 3 times what it is today, 50 million shares. That's a $200 a share price.
I don't believe this is overly optimistic, not with approval of both advanced products, and new applications being seen all the time. If in fact many new applications are found where our products help, a $10 billion market cap is probably very low. Earnings won't come instantaneously, but they'll build tremendously year over year.
Gary
$60, with only 15 million shares outstanding, amounts to a $.9 billion market cap. It's really not that high if something really big were to occur. I cannot say it will happen, but it's really not beyond the realms of possibilities.
I don't know if FDA approvals are possible next year, or in 2021, but I believe that by 2022 at least one, and possibly two drug approvals are likely. Then the question becomes, how much in earnings could these drugs generate. I believe both have blockbuster potential probably many times over. Certainly by that time we'll no longer have only 15 million shares outstanding, it's also very possible we'll have partners, or possibly have been bought out. If we're not bought out, by that time it's very possible that our market cap reaches double digit billions. Let's say it's $10 billion, and lets say our O.S. is over 3 times what it is today, 50 million shares. That's a $200 a share price.
I don't believe this is overly optimistic, not with approval of both advanced products, and new applications being seen all the time. If in fact many new applications are found where our products help, a $10 billion market cap is probably very low. Earnings won't come instantaneously, but they'll build tremendously year over year.
Gary
My problem with Boeing is that they allowed a second sensor become a higher priced option. I can understand car makers letting drivers choose between trusting themselves to control their cars, or let sensors take control when they think the driver is missing something, at least until such sensors are mandatory. Knowing a single sensor may give an errant reading, I cannot understand making the second sensor an option to bring the cost of the plane down. I'm sure when all the dust settles the Max will be a fine aircraft, and I suspect all will have both, or even more sensors. Safety of the passengers should never be an option.
Unless I'm mistaken, prior Airbus crashes have been blamed on faulty sensors. All these aircraft essentially fly themselves when the sensing systems and computers work right. The reason the crew is in the plane is when it's not working right, and in each case that resulted in deaths, I believe the problem became the crew not being able to fully override what the computers were attempting to do. These aircraft may be fly by wire, but at some point the pilot needs to be able to push a button that allows him to fly by the seat of the pants.
I believe the movie Sully did a great job of illustrating that when something goes wrong, if you know precisely what it is instantly, one course of action may work, but if there is even a small delay in analyzing it, the proper solution may be different. In Sully's case, they believed the plane could make a successful landing at an airport, but allowing a few seconds to decide resulted in crashes that would probably have killed all. Simulations work, but only when those in the simulator don't know what's going to be thrown at them, when they do know it's no longer a simulation as you react immediately because you know what you're going to be reacting to.
There are some similarities with drug trials. In NWBO's case they needed the additional time to react to what was being seen in the trial. Before they started, what was pseudoprogression was considered progression, and I believe the trial was largely modified to deal with this, and emphasis survival over progression.
Gary
It's probably nearly two decades since I heard about CVM, at the time it's symbol was HIV as they were saying the drug they believed worked for AIDS. In all the years the drug hasn't changed, they just keep trying it on different targets. In short, it's a cure in search of a disease. Perhaps some day they'll find something it actually works on, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
I cannot say how many times they've issued essentially the same PR, all they have to do is a search and replace where they search for the disease they tried the last time, and replace it with the disease they plan to do next. Of course with each new disease they issue a whole lot of new shares to fund it with, and as necessary do reverse splits to keep the share price in a reasonable range.
I don't believe there are any real comparisons between these companies.
Gary
It's understandable that investors want to hear more from the company, but I believe investors need to realize that while she may not speak for the company, most of Dr. Liau's presentations are about our products. She may not always identify the product she's speaking about, but we know what it is, and I cannot say I've ever heard her say anything that wasn't positive about what's happening in the trials.
Whether there is a specific presentation by the company at SNO, I believe Dr. Liau is speaking there. Sure, like all long investors I'd like the trial to be unblinded before SNO and a comprehensive presentation made by the company there. It's hard to say when it will happen if it doesn't happen there, but hopefully we'll all know more about what's happening in the not too distant future.
Gary
I believe people aren't looking at the share price in the manner it ought to be, that's the Market Cap. If trial results are released suggest one or more product is headed for approval, what would be a fair market cap for the company. Likewise, if they received a substantial order from the DOD prior to full FDA approval.
Depending on the news, I believe anything that's quite positive should lead to at least a half billion dollar market cap. If by the time this occurs our shares outstanding grow to say 20 million, that's a $25 share price.
Of course if the news is better than I suggest, a billion dollar or bigger market cap is possible, and certainly if it takes substantial time more than 20 million shares are probable. The key is, what's in the news, and how quickly it occurs.
I believe the DOD has assisted PSTI financially in developing it's product for radiation. In that situation, I believe the DOD will be able to purchase the product at a substantial reduction to the list price. That's not to say it won't be profitable to get the order, but others will pay more for the drug when they purchase it in the future. Perhaps the best news with this drug is that it appears to have many applications that go beyond just radiation, so the potential appears to be growing dramatically with each added application.
Gary
That may be true, but in having this in place they'd not need to come to shareholders to seek permission. I'm not saying it will happen because of this, but I do believe it makes it easier and faster should they choose to.
Gary
On the subject of quarterly webcasts, many of the companies I follow on the OTC or Pinks don't generally do them, most Nasdaq companies I follow do them. I don't believe it's a requirement of the exchange, but I'm just pointing out that as the company grows and move on to a major exchange, like the Nasdaq, they are more inclined to do it.
I would also think that most Nasdaq companies have demonstrated some degree of success, and therefore are less likely to have Analysts like Adam F trying to bring them down with the questions.
I think once the share price is well over $1 quarterly webcasts may routinely be scheduled, whether we move to the Nasdaq or not. It will largely be because the company will have positive news they want to share.
I also believe that with a substantially higher share price the company will be invited to speak at far more Investor and Institution Conferences. In short, when you demonstrate success, you receive invitations.
One such conference I know other companies looked forward to invitations from is the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference held early in January. If NWBO does reveal positive data at SNO, I believe there would be a chance they'd be invited to that conference.
Gary
I believe this filing opens up the possibility of a partnership where the partner is taking an equity position in the company.
For example, a partner could agree to pay $5 a share, so the company would receive $150 million for 30 million new shares, but the partner would also be willing to purchase up to say 70 million additional shares in the company from shares tendered by current investors. That would represent nearly 20% ownership in the company.
I'm not suggesting this will happen, just that it opens the door to the possibility.
Gary
I don't believe that anything can be proven. NWBO may have spoken to multiple BP's under confidentiality agreements. If that's the case, once the trial is unblinded, any who have a confidentiality agreement with the company will be open to re
view the data. At that point, or any time beyond, an offer of a partnership, or buyout could come at any time.
Ideally, any such offer could be countered by others who're reviewing the data, and new players could step in at any time. From our standpoint, a bidding war for either a partnership or buyout could be a thing of beauty. Merck might be one of the bidders, but don't bet that others may not be interested as well.
The question may come down to, what does the company want. They may have a figure in mind for either buyout, or partnership, but I'm uncertain whether their preference is one or the other. If we should get a partnership, you cannot be certain a buyout won't occur, and it could be the partner, or not.
Gary
Another reason I think this could be ideal is that after surgery, if mets exist, it can take months, or years before they grow to a mass where they can be detected. They may be possible to remove, but with pretreatment with Direct, then post surgery treatment with L, hopefully they'll never develop. I don't know how large a mass has to be to target it for injection with Direct, but treatment with L can continue as long as you have a viable supply of the vaccine.
I'm not a Dr. This is purely a layman's theory on my part, but it would seem logical. A relative had a cancer removed where the Doctor's frankly believed it would reoccur. Their intent was to find new masses when they were the size of a grain of rice and remove them. New experimental chemo has been applied, and to date no masses have needed to be removed, at least not yet. My advice to anyone with something that conventional medicine doesn't have an answer for is do the experimental, don't accept that nothing can be done but what already approved, search for what isn't, especially if it also provides a good quality of life.
Gary
In thinking about cancer treatment and our vaccines, if a patient had an operable tumor, wouldn't it still be ideal to create DCVax-Direct and inject that tumor prior to operating and allow the vaccine to permeate the tumor. Then on operating, use the removed mass to make DCVax-L for follow on treatment.
My thinking is that if 99% of the tumor was removed, that remaining 1% could be found in numerous places, and it can grow in each of these locations. If everywhere it can be found it also has DCVax-Direct working against it, its growth is likely to be stunted, then you add DCVax-L created from the tumor and you may have a knock-out punch.
I know that currently Direct is only used with inoperable tumors, and that's a good start, but if what I'm suggesting makes sense, it could be created and used before operable tumors were removed.
We all tend to think that discovery of a cancer should result in almost immediate removal of it. In practical life this doesn't happen, it often takes weeks to months before surgery, sometimes there is pretreatment, sometimes no. In some cases, chemo must be used to shrink the tumor to a size that permits surgery. I don't know that Direct would replace the chemo, or supplement it, but other than cost, I don't see a down side to such treatment, and if it's more effective in using it in this manner, the overall cost would be lessened, even if up front costs before surgery is greater.
I believe that Insurance companies often cost themselves more money by authorizing lesser treatment up front. Where a more expensive treatment is likely to resolve a problem, the use of something cheaper that fails to resolve the problem results in significantly higher costs over time. I realize that trials would have to determine that what I'm suggesting is true, but if they did, or once approved if anecdotal evidence showed that to be the case, it would be foolish not to spend the money in this way.
In the worst case, if treatment denied by insurance results in a death, the cost in a wrongful death situation is often thousands of times the cost of the treatment that was denied, or more. One time I served on a jury in such a case and the penalty went into millions because a test that would have cost perhaps $100 wasn't done.
Ultimately costs are a big part of determining how to treat people, but delay and denial of the treatment recommended by the Doctors often cost more in the long run. Worst case, Doctors won't even discuss the best form of treatment with the patient up front as they know the insurance won't allow it. If the patient gets worse, they know they can then use it, but not until they tried the cheaper approach.
Gary
Certainly something can be learned by such presentations, but I believe even if the trial were unblinded before the presentation, she couldn't go much beyond whatever was announced as top line data. Why? Because the company would want to present that information at a major conference, like SNO. Once data has been presented, even at a minor presentation, major conferences like SNO, ASCO, etc don't want it simply to be repeated, they want information presented at their conferences that is truly new to those in attendance.
I believe Dr. Liau has previously been very positive about DCVax-L, and continues to be, but she'll cooperate with the company to present major new data at major conferences. It's certainly my hope that they unblind before SNO, but if not, while ASCO might be the next major conference, there are others not quite as large where the presentation could be made. If I remember correctly, the cutoff for Abstracts at ASCO is in February, though an accepted Abstract can be revised for a period of time. Data actually presented at these major conferences can be right up to the minute, but the Abstract has to present enough to be scheduled for presentation, and how it's to be presented will also be based on what's in the abstract. All I'm suggesting is that it's a very important document, even if much is updated after its submission.
We've got to be getting close to the period where the program for SNO is released, hopefully then we'll learn a lot more about what NWBO will be presenting, I believe Dr. Liau is speaking there as well, but that's not specifically tied to an Abstract on DCVax-L.
Gary