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.
Lets think this through rationally. We all know there is still a good amount of shorts in play before Monday's ER. With 2 days of trading before ER with updates, things are getting desperate for the shorts. They obviously do not want to hear anything further on P2 results and progress of 3100 to P3. They are desperate and know the technology can't be attacked. So shorts try to create a toothless attack on the recent financial actions. That will eventually go nowhere as everyone and even the shorts know is all in attempt to buffer ER information. Think about it why not have this attack occur when RS occurred? Why now and what board members sold that would be considered breaches of fiduciary duty on these INVESTIGATE (not lawsuit this means nothing)POSSIBLE CLAIMS? Can you say shorts are the ones claiming and they know this will never materialize but this toothless news is only needed for the next 2 trading days. So they are pulling out all the stops attacking on all social boards hard by using shills/trolls/manipulators. Such action is occurring on FB page to try to mislead and persuade others into taking action. To argue with these trolls/shills plays right into their scam of creating FUD witch this person has been doing for the last month. Shorts are in difficult situation of having only 2 days left for this toothless attack to work if it fails you will see this stock do just the exact opposite of what they are hoping. They will try to create a sense of selling prior to and at the start of market hoping to create trigger finger sell offs allowing them to cover. If the trigger fingers don't show up this could backfire on them and the plan will fail miserably. So shorts and longs have one simple question. How many shaky naive INO holders are left to FUD at this point it will be interesting? Even in the initial news in AH hours the pps went the opposite direction following the news release than what they were expecting. I'm expecting the FUD/trolls/shills and manipulators will be working over time for the next 2 trading days on this toothless attack.
Thanks for the updates. Can you provide any points that really caught your eye in the Dr. Bagarazzi talk and did it relate to any of 3100 P2 results? Thanks again E.
Edit just found this but if you still have any thoughts would like to still hear them.
http://www.inovio.com/assets/000/000/001/111.pdf
“I am an investor in Ino not a trader.” This sounds like you're more of lover than a fighter. lol
People or should I say investors have no clue as to what this latest news by Inovio means it is so exciting to me. Now I understand what Dr. Weiner was referring to when he said during the new office dedication “the technology is probably beyond our imagination right now.” This just starting to get exciting from a scientific standpoint and as an investor. So go ahead Dr. Kim and cure numerous disease processes all by the same technology Inovio has created by inducing monoclonal antibodies and T cell responses. I'll tell you how upset I'm with Dr. Kim over this RS in 10 years when we are on cure number 27. Did I use the word cure, I wonder how many companies would not like to see a company like this flourish?
This is why I continue to support the Inovio board in directing this company. When they have science this ground breaking I think they are more than smart enough to know how to direct and manage a company.
I wish I was going just to much work and family commitments. I have never been to a share holders meeting but this one I would have liked to attended. It also would have been nice to meet you as well, so hope you can give an up to date read as overall mood and feel of the meeting for those of us that can't go. Thanks
Any news from The Woodlands lab visit?
I agree with EWM the RS is coming not for few more months which gives the pps time to run a little a higher. The stock price will dictate the RS ratio by the vote or little after the vote is made. That's why they gave it the 3 ratios actually 4 also possibly not enacting the RS, if stock price stays in 3-4 range we get 4:1 RS, if sp is 4-5 we get 3:1 RS, if sp is 5-6 we get 2:1 RS, it shoots to <10 on its own no RS that's the way I see it.
So when you mean sideways that means straight up 39 points? Ouch that's got to hurt 'em...seems as though you've disappeared hmm...wonder why? 39 points sideways hahahhaha can I squeeze your nose now? (honk honk)
The best way for new people to get the most from their questions on Inovio answered is to either ask specific questions. Or give specific reasons they may be hesitant to invest in Inovio or what major problems that you see facing Inovio. You will more than likely get better responses to your questions and better dialogue on the board. Just my 2 cents actually it was free.
Here's a good interview I just recently came upon with Dr. Niranjan Sardesai, Chief Operating Officer,Inovio Pharmaceuticals.
http://www.vaccinenation.org/2014/02/18/viewpoints-potential-dna-vaccines-across-broad-range-cancer-indications/#sthash.bhg8iLGQ.dpbs
Shelf registration filings, interesting read
http://blogs.nature.com/tradesecrets/2013/02/26/more-on-the-shelf
I wrote about shelf registration filings among small cap biotech companies. I defined a small cap biotech company as one engaged in drug development with a market capitalization of less than $1 billion. Often referred to by their SEC form designation, S-3, shelf registrations are prospectuses that allow companies to issue securities at any time within three years of the date of filing. Data from the past four years, specifically second quarter of 2010 to second quarter 2012, revealed that approximately 1/3 of US small cap biotechs use S-3 shelf registrations. Of those, however, around 80% of shelf-filing companies subsequently employ them, i.e., sell securities and raise additional capital, though the timing and the size of the first financing varies considerably. Thus, a company’s decision to put a shelf in place does indeed foreshadow a likely future financing, usually within six months.
How often do companies that finance off the shelf do so at a price above where before the shelf was filed?
Of the 268 S-3 filings, 215 companies subsequently raised money. Slightly less than have half, or 94/215 (~44%), raised subsequent money at share prices higher than the share price at the time of the S-3 filing. The range in share prices at the first financing varied dramatically, however. As can be seen in the plot in Figure 3, the range was -91.4% to +1,467%, the average change was +13.6%, but the mean was much lower at -8.7%, indicating the effect of positive outliers. Indeed, price decreases are limited to 100%, but share increases are theoretically limitless.
So, putting it all together, I’d say the takeaways are:
1. The immediate market sentiment to the filing of an S-3 statement tends to be slightly negative, as suggested by 1 day stock movements in the context of broader market movements. That said, the price changes are usually less than 10%, which a long-term investor can generally accept.
2. Whether the S-3 filing company subsequently raises capital at higher prices is not predictable; roughly half of them do, half of them don’t, with wide variations in between. Clearly, companies thrive or struggle based on their unique prospects. Another reason to do your due diligence.
3. Therapeutic area doesn’t seem to impact S-3 shelf size. However, this conclusion is based on small Ns in some cases and the categorization of companies by therapeutic area is difficult, as lead programs may change, they might be based on platform technology that is broadly-applicable, etc.
Com'on man, you take all the fun out of speculating. Next you'll tell me tomorrows super bowl is just another football game.
This should be a fun weekend. Because it's the super bowl weekend....and what's more fun then speculating about Inovio newest development.
Calling Everyhwereman are you out there??? Your 2 cents could also add some fun to the speculation of whats going on.
1. used for strategic partnership with big pharma
2. acquisition of something
3. funds for P3 for going it alone on 3100
4. shares to be used much later when price is higher down the road
5. do nothing with them and let them sit for backup relief if needed
or my favorite 6. donate some in my direction since I have been such a loyal follower.
Reading this news clip from Penn Medicine it’s very impressive how many graduate level people that are involved in this research with Dr. Weiner. This is just how Dr. Kim and Dr. Weiner came together. Not only is Dr. Weiner a great minded genius to have for the company but to be located at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania what a great asset. What potential to recruit Dr. Kim-esk grads to Inovio, to supply the company with great minds cannot be measured how important that aspect is for any company.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2014/01/weiner/
So it's defiantly not Inovio's vaccine."TA-HPV is a live attenuated recombinant vaccinia virus expressing HPV16 and HPV18 E6 and E7" not even close to synthetic.
I say no it's not Inovio's vaccine. It may have assistance from Morrow, but I don't believe its Inovio's vaccine. My guess would be Papivax vaccine that was used in this study. If you also read she talks about topical application which brings into play TremRx.
Funding for the research and clinical trial was provided by the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (CA123876, CA14269101, CA098252, CA006973) and the Dana Foundation.
Scientists contributing to the research include Leonel Maldonado, T.C. Wu and Chenguang Wang at Johns Hopkins; Jessica Teague and Rachael Clark at Brigham and Women's Hospital; Matthew Morrow at Inovio Pharmaceuticals; Iveta Yotova and Benjamin Tycko at Columbia University; Cindy Desmarais at Adaptive Biotechnologies; Jean Boyer at the University of Pennsylvania; and Harlan Robins at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Wu is a founder of Papivax LLC and owns stock. Robins owns stock and consults for Adaptive Biotechnologies, which helped conduct sequencing studies described in this report. Desmarais is employed by and has equity ownership in Adaptive Biotechnologies. Clark has stock in TremRx and is the scientific advisor for the Alopecia Areata Initiative, a nonprofit organization.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-01/jhm-vut012814.php
With the release of the latest peer reviewed study I feel sorry for Oncosec. This is the exact direction Oncosec is going with their treatment strategy for skin cancers. The problem I see for Oncosec is they are now essentially proving Inovio's cytokine approach. So when Inovio goes after melanoma cancer they are going to add their DNA vaccine SynCon plasmid along with their proven cytokine adjuvant(s) with the newest EP delivery system. While Oncosec is only giving 2 parts of the cocktail (cytokine & EP), Inovio will be putting 3 parts or more into their cocktail (SynCon DNA plasmid, EP and their specific engineered cytokines.) Here's another kicker Inovio's cocktail does not require it to be injected directly into the tumors like Oncosec is presently doing with their melanoma treatment trials.
I only see a one way street for Oncosec's success and it will essentially be more of a benefit for Inovio's concept then it will for Oncosec's benefit. Now if Oncosec has limited success it will also have impact on Inovio's concept. However, Inovio will claim Oncosec does not have all the ingredients for the proper performing cocktail as mentioned above.
All that said this newest study by Inovio is another amazing key in the armamentarium for creating a overwhelming immunogencity response for Inovio's vaccine therapy pipeline. It also amazes me when some moron makes a written opinion not science based about Inovio not having phase 3 study in 34 years or their technology hasn't been proven in 40 years. Which then drives the stock price down significantly and substantiates my belief that people are very easy to manipulate. (It also explains why we get the politicians we get.) This latest research news only had a whopping dime impact on the share price from Wednesday. It just confirms my notion of people's inability to comprehend published research and why we call Drs. Kim and Weiner geniuses.
I just can't see a deal not happening in the near future when you keep see headlines like these.
Bristol-Myers Willing to Take Deal Bets Despite Two Misses
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMY) will continue to seek out innovative drugs to buy, particularly for cancer, shrugging off two previous deals totaling $7.8 billion in the last three years that failed to pay off for them.
The New York-based drugmaker will target experimental treatments still in development, rather than commercial products that are already on the market, Chief Financial Officer Charles Bancroft said in an interview at the JPMorgan Chase & Co. health-care conference in San Francisco.
Bristol-Myers said in November it was ending research in diabetes, hepatitis C and neuroscience to put more resources into cancer. The new emphasis came after the company’s $5.3 billion purchase of Amylin Pharmaceuticals for its diabetes products, and the $2.5 billion hepatitis C deal for Inhibitex Inc. fell short. Last month, Bristol-Myers sold its diabetes business stake to partner AstraZeneca Plc for $4.3 billion.
“We have to take bets sometimes,” Bancroft said. “A really good company shows they can be adaptable and flexible to the environment they find themselves in at any given time.”
Strategically, Inhibitex was worth it because of the large market for hepatitis C, Bancroft said. “The risk-on, risk-off was enormous if that could have worked. Unfortunately it didn’t.” The company took a $1.8 billion charge in 2012 after Inhibitex’s drug was dropped for safety reasons.
Bristol-Myers fell 2.1 percent to $54.50 at the close in New York.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-15/bristol-myers-still-willing-to-take-deal-bets-despite-two-misses.html?cmpid=yhoo
This shows just how far ahead Inovio is with their vaccine development compared to others in the field.
http://www.fiercedrugdelivery.com/story/vaccine-nanoparticles-offer-shake-and-bake-field-delivery/2014-01-08?utm_campaign=AddThis&utm_medium=AddThis&utm_source=twitter#.Us1akTFfVEE.twitter
This tells you why Dr. Kim is so excited about collaborating with these checkpoint inhibitors. And looks like everyone needs a partner for the this burgeoning field called immunotherapy.
http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/lung-cancer/news/online/%7B0f958c0c-1a23-4686-9849-9b9fc0e54e3f%7D/novel-pd-1-antibody-induced-response-in-previously-treated-nsclc
http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2014/advance-cancer-immunotherapy.html#.UszGySavu7t.twitter
I can imagine how this just irks Dr. Kim when you have this schmuck distorting and lying about his company. The prick makes statements about how Dr. Kim is promoting his company as if this is negative but at the same time this prick is promoting fabrications about the company. This prick is a legitimate thief that knows his entire personal existence is about defrauding people.
No I have not, that is Oncosec's CEO you are talking about I take it.
On aside note I wished they could have incorporated my basketball analogy in the Inovio video they released today. Maybe they could hire Michael Jordan to illustrate the representation next time.;)
I have always been impressed with Oncosec, the funny thing it's the way I found Inovio. I was so impressed with Oncosec's tech but when I heard Oncosec was licensing the it from Inovio, I thought why not own the cow instead of just the milk. Oncosec is also smart to do exactly as Inovio is planing to do join the checkpoint inhibitors medication combination of treatment regimens. If you are driving a T-cell response it only makes sense these two modalities should be hand in hand. I think these guys are using the wrong analogy when it comes to taking the breaks off the immune system with the check point inhibitors. I would use a basketball analogy these checkpoint inhibitors are setting picks like in basketball but no one is running around the pick, that's where the T-cell producers come in. The T-cell is running around the pick set by the checkpoint inhibitor. So if you are driving robust T-cell responses you are a perfect fit for all the new checkpoint inhibitor compounds coming out. Inovio and Oncosec make perfect sense for all of them.
The only thing that concerns me about Oncosec is they are so far behind in the process compared to Inovio. They have no legit partner at this stage to help them through this crucial stages of development. So I can't help but see a dilution in their shares at some point to keep the company going with the all the studies that are still needed to be completed. Also, I see Oncosec only helping in fueling Inovio's concept more than helping their own cause. Again obviously this is all just my opinion and the way I see it. So take it for what you payed for it.
I agree, it shouldn't be looked at that way BUT it most defiantly will. That's why when Dr.'s Kim and Weiner where looking at their 1st SynCon vaccine design for their lead product out of Inovio they had better be really, really positive on their vaccine selection. Because just like we are discussing the entire company will be valued on the success of that 1st product, like it or not. Like the music industry you have to have early success to build a brand and failures can follow but only after the 1st success not vice versa. Now that being said, if they line up numerous partners in the mean time between the 3100 data release it will very much take out the major sting of the company's future if the data is lacking. However, just like you, Dr.'s Kim, Weiner have done and any longs that understands the science side very thoroughly aka Roche understand the odds of success, better then any financial investor, chart reader or prognosticators in the world. That's why when I pick stocks I trust only one persons opinion over everything I read on any said company. If you don't you will be stuck trusting people that you wouldn't even want in your home. You are a smart man and you know exactly what I'm talking about, to many people in investing today don't.
It's gives overwhelming proof for elctroporation with validity for it's use in plasmid administration because they are using plasmid IL-12. However, the argument will be they were not using any of the Inovio's synthetic DNA plasmids so we still don't know till those specific plasmids are fully tested.
My view is Inovio has shown in their HIV study when you combine IL with a synthetic DNA along with EP you get an overwhelming immunogenicity response. The Oncsec phase 2 will only further validate Inovio's study of IL immunogenicity responses they obtained in the HIV study. Then you add the impact of synthetic DNA plasmid specific antigen vaccine and this will only make these response rates never seen before aka T-cell rates, that they are presently seeing in previous studies. Like Dr. Kim states what happens when you take the breaks off the T-cell response with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies? We will see immunogenicity responses to cancer or your disease of choice like we have never seen in medicine.
So what impact will Oncosec's P2 data have on Inovio? Probably very little because we are talking about the same people that get manipulated out of their shares by simple false statements. They will also be manipulated by the same people when this news is released as well.
He states “effective clinical trials” not phase 3 double blinded just “effective clinical trials.” He actually is caught in his own web of a lie on this one. He tried to use efficacy as a way to protect himself but failed on simple use of clinical trials with no specific type of trial. Inovio has shown in clinical studies (2 making it plural covering his false statement) of it's efficacy of their vaccines in peer reviewed clinical studies. Yes not on the scale of a phase 3 study, but enough clinical studies of proof to make his statement a direct and outright lie.
I hear you it just burns me when people lie or mislead. When fair and constructive criticism is healthy for debate. But outright lie and manipulation with no accountability just isn't right. Something we would never teach our kids or grand-kids but our country allows this kind of action everyday in our financial institutions and government. I fear for our children's future. Because when good people stand by passively with no opposition to evil the wicked will inherit the earth.
He literally outright lies without any repercussions.
"The technology upon which the company's vaccine candidates are based is more than 30 years old and has never proven to be effective in clinical trials."
What is this called clinical party? Even a moron lawyer could prove this lie in court of law.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/inovios-cellectra-electroporation-delivery-technology-powers-durable-best-in-class-t-cell-responses-from-hiv-vaccine-in-human-study-214867291.html
Inovio's CELLECTRA® Electroporation Delivery Technology Powers
Durable, Best-in-Class T-Cell Responses from HIV Vaccine in Human Study
Next-generation HIV vaccine achieves seven-fold increase (7% to 52%) in response rate of CD8 T-cells when delivered with electroporation; robust CD4 or CD8 T-cell responses observed in 89% of subjects
Results published in peer-reviewed Journal of Infectious Diseases
plus: http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/155/155ra138
Taking advantage of the sheep you bad person.;) I need to get more dry powder into my account fast.
This was the best responses of negativity he could muster. "The technology upon which the company's vaccine candidates are based is more than 30 years old and has never proven to be effective in clinical trials." Why didn't he use the old tried and true response about the company has been around for 30+ years with no phase 3 study. I didn't realize 30 years ago EP was used with synthetic DNA plasmids. Oh that's right he just conveniently forgot no one has ever had the ability 30 years ago to create synthetic DNA plasmids to specific antigens and then inject said plasmids with EP. Lets also ignore all the peer reviewed journal research that has been published in 2013 by Inovio. That would take to much thinking to have to counter.
"Inovio's management team is exceptionally promotional..."
Are you serious has he ever heard the smooth talking no accent debanear CEO of Inovio speak?
Then the topper of all statements. "I look forward to seeing the data from the VGX-3100 cervical dysplasia study. Mid-year."
He must be a genius why would anyone want to see this information? Just shows how the sheep can be lead to the slaughter.
That is some exciting stuff this's why the C word (the good one) is being thrown around a lot more when they are talking T-cell serial killers. You see the side effect of killing a tumor that big that fast puts a lot of strain on the kidneys. Because the kidneys can't filter the blood from the overload of toxic dead tumor cell material. Never thought of having a problem like that, it's like having to much of a good thing but I'm sure they'll figure that out real quick.
Thanks for the info always enjoy doing more investigating MK-1775 & ADCs. What else is there to do on a day off?
I see ADCs require a toxic agent to be attached to it aka “warhead” in order to make it effective so toxic dose effects still plays a part. MK-1775 “WEE1 kinase inhibitor” is also a dose dependent medication for continuous treatment of that said tumor. None involve stimulating the T-cell response or memory cells which I still believe are vital to the success of curing the disease process. I am bias toward Inovio as I believe they are the ones on the right track for success all because of their T-cell response success rates. If it wasn't for the T-cell response rates that they are achieving, I would have very little interest in their overall model.
Back for some more fun sleuthing.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304753504579284651836908502
Dr. Perlmutter has also shuffled management at Merck labs. He has hired people he worked with at biotech Amgen Inc., and begun setting up an infrastructure to restock the company's pipeline by doing deals to bring in promising drugs discovered elsewhere.
Dr. Perlmutter has singled out so-called immunotherapies for treating cancer, as well as vaccines, as priorities. Yet he has also said he wants to be less dogmatic about focusing on specific therapeutic areas in the first place, and to be more opportunistic about pursuing the best science, whatever disease it involves. Such an approach requires the means to identify promising areas and seal deals tapping into them.
To facilitate this deal-making, Merck said in August it had hired Iain Dukes as senior vice president of licensing and external science. He was previously vice president of external R&D at Amgen.
What is Dr. Perlmutter background?
was a professor in the Departments of Immunology, Biochemistry and Medicine at the University of Washington and also served as chairman of its Department of Immunology where he was a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. His research focused on understanding the signaling pathways that control lymphocyte activation.
Do you think he knows anything about the importance of T-cell response in treating diseases? My big leap of a hunch I say YES!
http://www.merck.com/about/leadership/executive-committee/roger-m-perlmutter.html
So what impact would VGX-3100 have on Gardasil when 3100 gets approved?
Merck has options here they can watch Gardasil get squeezed or they can have a hand in the replacement of Gardasil. From everything those last few paragraphs say about Merck’s restructuring this would put Inovio square in the sites of Merck.
Who has the best new immunotherapies and vaccines candidates?
Dr. Kim "we are in deep discussions with other big pharma on other products in the pipeline and 2014 will dwarf 2013." Also, is not Dr. Kim a product of Merck vaccine department with others on the management board? Yes (just simply adding it all up, you'd have to be brain dead not to see where this is all leading)
Science never takes a day off even on Christmas. http://www.broadinstitute.org/news/5412
“Our findings further elucidate the key role HPV is playing in the development of cervical cancer, which in turn emphasizes the importance of combating the disease by vaccinating against HPV,” Meyerson said.
In addition to the evidence supporting vaccination as a means of prevention, the researchers say the study bears important clinical implications for targeted therapeutics.
“In metastatic cervical cancer, more effective systemic therapy is urgently needed,” Salvesen explained.
I have heard Dr. Kim talk about taking the brakes of the immune system plenty of times this year. So with this by Merck something could be up.
Merck also made it clear that its business development team has more of these deals in the works.
"Collaborations like this are central to Merck's strategy to evaluate the potential of MK-3475 for the treatment of cancer," said Iain Dukes, senior vice president of licensing and external scientific affairs at Merck Research Laboratories. "We look forward to initiating further collaborations to investigate MK-3475 in combination with other anti-cancer agents across a range of tumor types."
Read more: Merck partners up with GlaxoSmithKline on its prize cancer immunotherapy - FierceBiotech http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/merck-partners-glaxosmithkline-its-prize-cancer-immunotherapy/2013-12-18#ixzz2nrb6FwFn
Subscribe at FierceBiotech
http://jutiagroup.com/20131217-the-new-year-heralds-a-transition-in-stem-cell-development-jason-kolbert/
The Life Sciences Report
TLSR: Could you comment on DNA vaccines? These may offer greater advantages for some patients and investors.
JK: I’m glad you asked that question. There’s a connection. These DNA vaccines or plasmids—three-dimensional DNA circles with selected genes sequences engineered into them—are the ultimate cancer vaccine therapies. What’s Dendreon’s goal with Provenge? It’s to elicit a T-cell response that seeks and destroys the tumor cells. What are ImmunoCellular and Northwest doing? They are trying to create a T-cell response that will destroy the cancer. What is Agenus doing? It’s using heat shock proteins to train the immune system to fight the cancer. All of that makes perfect sense. But, what if you could elicit the desired immune response without having to involve the patient with a harvest of tissues or cells at all?
Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc. (INO:NYSE.MKT) can manufacture a plasmid vaccine in the lab for literally a cost of pennies. This is devastating for the autologous cell model. This plasmid, combined with Inovio’s proprietary electroporation technology, allows the plasmid to pass through cell membranes and into cells, which then synthesize the antigens that create a T-cell response. With this technology, it may be possible to vaccinate people against cancer using a laboratory-engineered vector that costs pennies to produce and does not include expensive, time-consuming harvests of cells.
Inovio is currently working in cervical neoplasia caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). When a woman has a Pap smear and it comes back from the pathology lab as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II or III (CIN II/III), it’s showing that she is progressing toward cancer. Inovio’s idea is to vaccinate that patient with its engineered plasmid VGX-3100 (targeting E6 and E7 proteins of HPV subtypes 16 and 18) to elicit a T-cell response that would prevent that woman from progressing to full-blown cervical cancer. The primary endpoint of the ongoing phase 2 trial is for the CIN II/III lesion to regress to CIN 1 after nine months. That would be a huge value, because right now all we do is wait to see if the dysplasia progresses to cancer.
But what if you never let it get that far? It sounds futuristic, but we’re there now, and the reason we’re there is this little company, Inovio. By the way, Roche Holding AG (RHHBY:OTCQX) just signed a deal earning Inovio $10M upfront and $412M in potential milestones to develop plasmids that will target prostate cancer, as well as hepatitis B. This is an exciting time for Inovio.
TLSR: Jason, in mid-2014 we’re expecting to get a readout on Inovio’s phase 2 trial testing its VGX-3100 vaccine in 148 patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. What will this event mean for investors?
JK: If those data are compelling, then investors will have to start valuing Inovio not just on the fact that Roche, a major global pharma, seems to be validating its science, but on the real commercial opportunity for its cervical cancer vaccine. The answer to your question is that it’s a very important event. Based on good data in summer 2014, there could be a bump up in valuation. In addition, I think the Roche partnership is probably the first of several to come, because what this little company has is a blueprint of how to manufacture antigens using plasmids. When you think about the number of opportunities that exist for a company like Inovio, it’s almost limitless.
TLSR: Preclinical development at Inovio is just a matter of engineering desired genes into plasmids to synthesize the antigens that will elicit the T-cell response you want. It’s a compact model compared to anything else we’ve seen, isn’t it?
JK: That’s all true. . .but remember, the company doesn’t “just engineer the plasmid.” You and I are taking a lifetime of work by Dr. Joseph Kim, the cofounder and CEO of Inovio, and boiling it down into a nutshell. Sure, if I gave you the recipe for the plasmid, you could go into the lab and make it. But Inovio has the recipe. It knows how to come up with the DNA sequence that will turn on the machinery of a cell to produce a specific antigen or antigens. The delivery platform, electroporation, is also a critical step for this therapy. OncoSec Medical Inc. (ONCS:OTCBB), which uses technology that was essentially spun out of Inovio’s, is reporting very strong data in melanoma. With the onset of checkpoint inhibitors and DNA vaccines, we may see new levels of efficacy and a complete paradigm shift in the way melanoma is treated.
TLSR: Do you have any summary thoughts?
JK: I think 2014 will be the year in which investors begin to focus on data and business models in the cell therapy space. We want to see great data from Athersys in stroke, from Athersys and Pfizer in ulcerative colitis and from Mesoblast with Prochymal in Crohn’s disease. We’d love to see Mesoblast launch a U.S. clinical trial with Prochymal in GvHD, where an approved therapy is so desperately needed. We want to see Teva initiate the 1,700-person clinical trial in CHF with Mesoblast’s Revascor. We want to see positive results from the NeoStem phase 2 PRESERVE trial for STEMI. If we get great data from Agenus’ heat shock protein vaccine, and great results from Northwest’s pivotal trial in GBM, the year will represent a milestone on the oncology side for cell therapy.
TLSR: Thank you very much.
JK: Great speaking with you, as always.
Jason Kolbert has worked extensively in the healthcare sector as product manager for a leading pharmaceutical company, as a fund manager and as an equity analyst. Prior to joining Maxim Group, where he is managing director, Kolbert spent seven years at Susquehanna International Group, where he managed a healthcare fund and founded SIG’s biotechnology team. Previously, Kolbert served as the healthcare strategist for Salomon Smith Barney. He is often quoted in the media and is a sought-out expert in the biotechnology field. Prior to beginning his Wall Street career, Kolbert served as a product manager for Schering-Plough in Osaka, Japan. He received a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from State University of New York, New Paltz, and a master’s degree in business administration from the University of New Haven.
I can't figure out what the difference is between this and INO way of attacking the flu virus wiht the SynCon technology http://zeenews.india.com/news/health/health-news/protein-breakthrough-brings-universal-flu-vaccine-closer-to-reality_25607.html
INO needs to provide wine with their vaccines http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/glass-of-wine-a-day-may-keep-the-doctor-away-113121700485_1.html
This is what I'm saying.
The Inovio train is coming and it's coming fast and furious. For those that can't hear it by putting their ears to the tracks, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't buy a ticket now YOU WILL be paying luxury price seating later which is fine by me.
People say well look at Provenge, look at Vical, look at HIV bone marrow transplant failure, look at all the failures of DNA vaccine attempts with all kinds of crazy adenoviruses and on and on. True, but they ARE NOT doing the Inovio way. Yes they are in the same field of immunotherapy but the sauce is completely different and the delivery system is revolutionary. Can you hear me?
So essentially their competition is withering away and it is coming down to a few therapy’s that are showing true success. And a little side note, one guy who is in involved with both ways of showing success/CURE of cancer, Dr. Greenberg and CARt therapy with leukemia and Inovio. Why? (I ask a lot of questions that's just the scientist in me)
BEACAUSE T-CELL THERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO CURE CANCER!!!!
It's so simple it all boils down to who is the best at producing T-cells?
Here's a prediction nothing to do with stock predicating. Doctors David Weiner, Phil D. Greenberg, Carl June and Joseph Kim WILL BE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS
I know, what a leap of a prediction when someone cures cancer.
Time to put our thinking cap on, ok maybe our Sherlock Holmes hat.
Why? If you go to Inovio's web site and go under investor. Why is the 1st point made under investment highlights made with such bravado?
“Potentially game changing” this even supersedes the Roche deal of 420+ million. Hmmm....you could even add all the other recent bravado remarks of dwarf 2013 and leveraging vgx-3100 to the mix of bravado talk. So why would such a usually meek and mild manor gentlemen speak like this? hmm....
Investment highlights
-Potentially game-changing phase II efficacy data from lead program mid-2014
-Exclusive worldwide partnership with Roche to develop and commercialize products from Inovio’s prostate cancer (INO-5150) and hepatitis B (INO-1800) immunotherapy programs
-Advancing discussions with large pharmaceutical companies regarding partnerships
-Almost $60M in non-dilutive third party R&D grants and expenditures since 2009
-Operating capital through 1Q 2016
When the phase 1 study was initially released, how was that information 1st released to the public? Easy, Science Translational Medicine peer review article in October of 2012 .
Look at the news releases following. An interesting comment made by Dr. Kim in a few of them about release time frame of phase II HPV information being released at the end of 2013. Hmm... it's the end of 2013 now we are told it won't be released till mid 2014.
Why? No biggie science data always gets pushed back, True.
Why did a big time exec on the board at about the same time the data from the original time frame phase II data was to be released make a large purchase of INO stock? Hmm......anyone Bueller
Again, lets go back to how the original phase I data was released, peer reviewed journal article. Lets put the thinking caps on now. If you had scientific data you believed to be “potentially game-changing data" how would you like to release that data to the public?
You guys are smart that’s why you bought INO. Correct, peer reviewed journal. How long does it usually take to go through that process? Anywhere from 5-6 months depending on data quality. Hmm.... Again when did that exec make his trade to when the release of phase II data mid next year will be? How many months was that?... Hmm....6
What's your final conclusion Sherlock? One more thing when do they ever publish failed data in a peer reviewed journal article? Almost never....hmm....
Dr. Weiner just keeps working and publishing with little fanfare.
Cancer Gene Ther. 2013 Dec 6. doi: 10.1038/cgt.2013.65.
DNA vaccine cocktail expressing genotype A and C HBV surface and consensus core antigens generates robust cytotoxic and antibody responses in mice and Rhesus macaques.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24310062