On the other side of the world.
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.
You spent all of December talking about selling points during the run and then you ask why it didn’t stick? There’s a word for that...
I find it absolutely amazing that a doctor will dismiss preclinical studies as just curing psoriasis in mice and ignore the xenograft study data and parallels with early trial data. I also find it fascinating when those same doctors dismiss small trial data as too few and unreliable to use as evidence of any efficacy, yet use the same small data set to claim and project that there is a larger probability of little or no efficacy in the following trial.
Astonishing, I mean jaw dropping, chin on the chest astonishing
But there are AFs, Makos and Clay Traders who trash talk IPIX, lie about IPIX, and simply recommend shorting IPIX, the last having an army of followers who do exactly that. Yet, many characterize the actions of all three as “normal market forces.”
Not true. The last 2 months of 2017 Aspire sold only about 47k shares. It ain’t Aspire racing to sell on a nickel and then trash talking about IPIX not being able hold a nickel.
The answer was to a claim that tapping the shelf would cause a catastrophic share price collapse. The statement was in that context.
Of course there would need to be a second 2c but with a BTD it could be anything from another small trial to a larger trial examining dose and delivery optimization, or even a combined 2c/3. Even if there needs to be a 2c followed by a 3, how much did the previous trial cost? Do you think the funding for a 2c and 3 would exceed $35 million? Do you think securing the funding would not be in the interest of investors other than the usual blip down at the announcement?
Exactly right.
Pull up what I said.
First, securing the funding for a Phase 3 trial for OM would be perceived as beneficial to shareholders. It would secure solvency through completion. Depending on the trial design and fast track, certainly less than $50 million, there would even be sufficient funding to move something else forward. So, the shelf is not useless because of the open terms. It can be used for nearly every type of funding round including guaranteeing a loan. You should know Leo well enough to know that he will use the least dilutive funding he can. He has only used one PIPE and that was for $3 million. I personally know a group he could tap for 20 million.
What part of $75 million available in funds confuses you on the issue of moving forward? We don’t even know how much the last 2 B drugs will cost to trial. You do realize that B-OM and B-UP are already moving forward, yes? Those two are now the low hanging fruit.
No, that’s not what I said at all. You’re referring to an acquisition, partner or license as a “bail out.” These are not bail outs when drugs are preclinical or clinical phase and show efficacy, and you also seem to think tha 75 million on a shelf plus Aspire is some how a liability. It’s not.
Huh? So your solution to moving forward slowed progress toward approval is to lay off/shutdown? What a contradiction.
Here’s my prediction, if K, P and B all signal efficacy after their respective phase2 trials, there will be an acquisition of the personal wealth dynasty forming kind. If not, then if all 3 B trials have shown efficacy (already shown), a BP will elect to license, partner, or buyout, whether individual indication or entire platform.
I might get the timing wrong, but for 10 years here have yet to be wrong about advancement.
Your question—what’s the holdup?—was answered way back last August. Leo is waiting for bottom line reports from all 3 trials and FDA responses to BTD and other fast tracks before finalizing any negotiations for Brilacidin or Prurisol.
The one thing I keep hoping is that a lot of traders and short strategists are out, or heavily short, at the point of a deal announcement. After market would be great, but after market Friday would be truly sweet Justice.
The all time low is 10 cents. How is 70 cents near the all time low?
Yes, someone but not likely Aspire. In fact it’s likely a couple or two duds, I mean dudes.
Last month I bought more shares than Aspire bought all last quarter. So, don’t give me that Aspire bullshit that’s been pedaling here like forever.
A more careful reading reveals the following:
1) IV verses B-OM swish and spit.
2) long and frequent visits to administer IV verses B-OM swish and spit at home.
3) the regimen adds about $1500 per visit (could be up to $2400) to cost of onco therapy, for how many visits?
4) May not be covered by most insurers.
5) focus in report was on <60 Gy verses >60 Gy for B-OM with <55 Gy thrown out.
He didn’t walk it back. He expanded his assessment. There is a big difference. He also didn’t admit neglecting the source material. He said he should have gone to the trial site. After doing that he recognized some flaws in the trial design.
I hate cherry picking.
ClayTrader
Followed By 8044
Explain to me in what way a ClayTrader short post is irrelevant.
We all have a good idea of who has been selling. Doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. Recall please the Clay Trader sell signals last month? Why, some sellers are even rated pro.
Read my post again and read the filings.
Aspire only sold (I think) 47k shares. Someone posted the exact number earlier. Very few shares. No Aruda selling, no Aspire selling, no insider selling, must be swing traders and short sellers, don’t you think?
16 million shares
-3 million shares to attorneys
====
13 million shares
-~7 million shares current holdings (actually holds a bit more)
====
~6 million shares sold by Arudas. Or, ~45% over 4 years likely for estate planning and portfolio diversification.
You are way high on Aruda selling. And, I’m sure the attorneys finished selling long ago.
You are misreading the form:
(a) Amount beneficially owned: Wayne O. Aruda and Mary M. Aruda jointly hold 7,316,824 shares of Common Stock Class A.
Also see
9. AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
7,316,824 shares of Common Stock Class A.
Aggregate means both together, total amount.
The Arudas still retain more than half their shares. Of the total 16 million share award the attorney fee was 2 million shares. I concur.
You need to review scottsmith’s list. Warning, it’s a long one. Your examples are but a drop in the bucket from the lust of acquisitions and mergers.
My point is, do you really think an IPIX offer once made public will be 200% of the current price just because the majority of acquisitions go for less than that? That’s my point.
It’s not nonsense and most know that. So again, what part is nonsense? The part about not filtering for bio only?
Your list does not include anything above 500% and we all know there were offers well above 500%, and many on the list at the time of acquisition the offer was already public this filling the gap ahead of acquisition.
No, this is not nonsense.
Because it was a corporate overview followed by 2 days of meetings.
Try filtering your list for bio sector only. You’ll find that everything under 200% had a trial failure or was perceived as failure and unable to raise money or continue trials at the point of buyout. The truly rare bio buyout is the one with near full offering valuation at the time of acquisition without a failure.
As I said I’m either too busy or too lazy to go back and dig that up for you. It takes more than referencing iHub. The two I already listed were the past year and it took nothing to find them.
The top 5 are all over 200%. There are a dozen deals well over 200% the past 5 years. Do a little research outside iHub and you will see BK is correct.
You edited and fixed your link. Thanks.
Your link took me to a malware site. All my alerts went off.
A few exceptions? There are more than a dozen “exceptions” the past 5 years. Considering the number of acquisitions in that time, a dozen isn’t exceptional.
I just showed two very recent deals, one for more than 4 time cap and the other more than 17 times cap. Both were for failed drugs. There are many more examples within the past 5 years. What part of that is nonsense? It doesn’t matter what IPIX current cap is. The deal will not be affected by current share price. There is plenty of evidence for this.
It didn’t take long to find exceptions to your “not more than double” postulate.
Ocera-Mallinckrodt “Ocera started the day with a market cap at $26 million, making this a bite-sized buyout for the likes of Mallinckrodt. They’re paying $42 million for the stock — at $1.52 each along with $75 million in contingent value rights for the company.” That’s 4 times the cap.
Allergan-Tobira “This lowered its market cap to below $100 million but at the end of play yesterday, this had dropped by nearly half, to just $52 million.” “Allergan ($AGN) has snapped up tiny Tobira ($TBRA) and its struggling fatty liver disease candidate, along with the rest of its pipeline, for potentially $1.7 billion.” let’s see, even taking the 100 million number, that’s 17 times the cap.
By the way, both of those were for drugs that failed trials. So let’s also see, how many trials has IPIX failed?
I would go find a couple of examples of drug startups that have been purchased for like 30 to 50 times their caps, but I’m either too busy or too lazy to do that. I leave that to someone else. Meanwhile, I’ll leave it at, partnerships and acquisitions are barely connected to caps and share price, even if barely connected.
Getting murdered? It’s printing even on low volume going into the afternoon.
“The patient population recruited into this study includes those ovarian cancer patients that have platinum resistant/refractory disease, defined as disease progression/relapse within 6 months following the last administered dose of platinum therapy (resistant), or lack of response or disease progression while receiving the most recent platinum based therapy (refractory), respectively. Patients may or may not have had additional treatment (e.g., Doxil) prior to entry in this study.”
Not out of options, but darn close. Yeah, I think when he mentioned “placebo effect,” he may have meant more correctly spontaneous remission. I think it’s the “doc” who keeps saying the word “placebo.”
Here is a preclinical onco drug platform that went for $150 million upfront and $2.5 billion in milestones: https://endpts.com/novartis-xencor-bispecific-cancer-drug-development-deal/
No I’m not wrong. I said it wasn’t a primary outcome. The primary outcome for the study was further understanding pharmacodynamics and MOA. From the beginning of preclinical safety testing, Kevetrin was not meant to be a stand-alone drug, though there was hope it might arrest or reduce tumors on its own without further intervention, especially for those patients having already exhausted all options. Kevetrin efficacy has always been, and continues to be, p53 modulation. Kevetrin clearly is efficacious. Your statement that it has no efficacy demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of what Kevetrin is supposed to do, actually does and it’s value to a BP.
Nonsense. The OC trial was at the behest of interested BPs. That’s why the small trial primary outcome was MOA and not efficacy as measured by tumor reduction. A BP is very likely to partner and run combination trials based on individualized treatment. That has been the target for BP cancer trials for some time, but they lacked a safe and effective p53 drug. Effective, individualized treatment may no longer be science fiction.
While others said and implied begging, I never did. But, K will partner and so will B. Whether the deal(s) is (are) front- or back-loaded, a highly lucrative partnership or license will emerge. I wouldn’t be surprised at an offer sufficient for all CTIX/IPIX officers and staff to retire 1st Class, top 1%.