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.
Sorry I've been a bit busy today. I'll post them later tonight.
Found an interesting tidbit on Google today. I was looking up survival rates for the last 20 years on cancer in general and came across this.
While the article says overall there has been a drop in cancer deaths in the last 25 years it also said this:
"In contrast to declines for the most common cancers, death rates rose from 2012 through 2016 for liver (1.2% per year in men; 2.6% per year in women), pancreatic (men only, by 0.3% per year), and uterine corpus (endometrial) cancers (2.1% per year), as well as for cancers of the brain and other nervous system, soft tissue (including heart), and sites within the oral cavity and pharynx associated with the human papillomavirus (HPV)."
Link to article:
http://pressroom.cancer.org/Statistics2019
Fosco,
In response to your question, here is the answer:
"Everything is counted. Doesn’t matter how you die. Just whether you are alive or dead."
Hope that helps :)
Lightrock,
I'm curious about something. Weren't you the one who said you worked in finance for a hedge fund before?
If so, can you explain something to me please? Is CVM on the radars of investment firms? Would they do in depth research on a stock like this? From everything our board has looked into, it looks like a good buy. But even with the new filings, it still seems like CVM is overlooked. Are firms looking into this and seeing something we are all missing? Do they have access to info we don't? Or is it more realistic to think that they are simply unaware and at a quick glance don't like CVM and they just aren't putting too much time into it?
I've seen studies suggest something like 25% of a population has to buy into an idea for it to take root even if it is a good one. Are we just not at that threshold yet?
The price action confuses me daily. Just trying to look into the other side of things here :)
Great! Those two questions are already on my agenda. We are on the same page with those.
To anyone else reading, let me know if there are any other realistic valuable questions to ask. I have a few more but open to others.
My phone call with him is tomorrow actually. Looking forward to it immensely at this point. Again, if anyone has reasonable questions they want me to ask, now would be the time to let me know what they are. I already have a few of my own. :)
So we end at $4.49? I just can't help feeling like someone is mocking us, just pushing it down barely enough each time to close below support. I'm holding. Too late in the game not to be imo. But I'd rather just know if I'm buying more at $4 or $5.
Hopefully great news surprises all of us soon and kills all the speculation.
I keep seeing Teva pop up. But in terms of another company no one has mentioned before that could (in theory) be a good candidate to buyout CVM, is Amgen.
"Amgen Inc., previously known as Applied Molecular Genetics (AMGen), is an American multinational biotech company based in Thousand Oaks, California. It was established in 1980 to develop innovative drugs serving areas of unmet medical need and is the world leader in biopharmaceuticals. In 2016, the company had net income of $7.72B.
According to Forbes magazine, Amgen is the world’s largest biotech company of 2018."
Their market cap worth is 120 billion.
Plus their key products are:
-Enbrel, an anti-inflammatory drug against rheumatoid arthritis
-Neulasta & Neupogen, closely related drugs used to prevent infections following chemotherapy, radiation poisoning, and HIV/AIDS
Doesn't that sound super similar to what CVM does with LEAPS and Multikine? Looks like a great fit to me at least on paper.
I spoke about the buyout possibility in my post. But I want to add this thought onto yours and lightrocks discussion. You have debated whether it would be smart for CVM to sell and then do cancer fighting a disservice.
Why can't they just tack some terms onto the buyout offer about improving Multikine, combining it with other treatments, basically keep researching it to improve its efficiency. If one or a few of the directors want to stay on with the new company as advisors to help oversee things and improve Multikine and cancer treatments that could also be done. It's not out of the realm of realistic possibility. They can have their cake and eat it too on this one if Multikine works.
Three things,
1: I personally think they get bought out. I've seen some discussion on this. It would make perfect sense for them to get bought out. Why did they hire Robert Watson who according to their website "has over 35 years of experience in the healthcare information technology industry as a CEO, board member and advisor to multiple HCIT companies. He has participated in over 75 acquisitions, raised nearly $750,000,000 in capital, completed three public offerings and successfully sold four companies." If they didn't bring him on board to help with a buyout, then that's beyond my belief. There are many other reasons as well, (age of directors, history of the company would still be hard to overcome even with good data ((why battle it when you can just sell it), would make sense for other companies to add Multikine onto their product lines) etc etc. Maybe it isn't sold. But I am of the belief they probably already have some verbal conditional offers floating around (nothing official that would require a filing) but that's my two cents.
2. Glad we ended green today. Also glad for the long holiday weekend with no trading on Monday. This gives us a day to relax and the shorts can't short for one day. Right now, I'm grateful for that because every day that passes is one more day in our favor plus they can't scare people with selling. Price should be at $10 right now, not $4.70, but I'll take $4.70 with a long weekend. Good luck longs.
3. Fosco, Lightrock, many others, and I have all been VERY conservative about the survival rate numbers. We all assume they have gone up a little. Geert and team keep saying "We haven't seen any increase in survival". Okay. Still not sure if I buy that, but maybe the worldwide average is still 55% even though developed countries have increased. IF the average survival rate for 3 years is somehow still around 55%. Then we are over a 60% increase in survival. Coming up with numbers for stock price just becomes comical at that point. I've been so reserved and pessimistic towards survival, I may as well try to see it from the other/more positive side for once. Maybe we are wrong and survival for SOC is still horrible and Multikine really has increased survival by over 60%. Maybe the IDMC wants to finish the study to confirm beyond any doubt. I've seen stranger things happen. If so, 'cancer cure' is well within the realm of accurate phrasing. We are also all millionaires/multimillionaires at that point. In a way I hope that as sad as it is for current cancer patients, I hope survival is that poor. Not only would it make us all a lot of money. It would also be fantastic in fighting cancer because we just put a massive dent in it.
Enjoy the weekend, anyone who is still holding after all this or has increased, deserves it.
Interesting. So IF they are separated. Why wouldn't Ergomed buy their own shares if they are optimistic about chances of success?
Can Ergomed buy shares on the open market? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest since Ergomed has unblinded info on the study? I thought that was why their shares were restricted and they can't benefit from them increasing in price.
I could be wrong.
If Ergomed sold/are selling, maybe that is driving/keeping price down and others are buying up their shares? That would be comforting honestly.
George,
Do you think this current price action is CVM being controlled by deep pockets? Shaking out the tree? If so, wouldn't we expect to see a reversal here soon if someone is buying/accumulating?
Pijoe,
That makes sense. That answer actually makes sense to me. Why risk the blowback of something going wrong (only having 296 events instead of 298) and then getting pummeled/sued for it. CVM already is beat down. Why risk it. But as for you doubting they would burn the shorts. Why not? If price halted and opened much higher to continue into new highs. Wouldn't they be roasted?
To your lightrock response on Geert looking at our spreadsheets:
I would love that. Doubt he openly would comment. But regardless, I think ours have to be fairly accurate at this point.
Also I think it would be ridiculously foolish of CVM to not at least considered putting higher SOC survival numbers into their spreadsheets. Right? If you had this much riding on the line and so much time to wait. Why wouldn't you? IF they just went off their assumed low survival numbers and never played devils advocate I would be more worried...
Lightrock,
I think that is a great question to ask about the Ergomed shares! They are wanting to sell them before 298 correct? Do they have to sell them before 298? I can't remember the terms of the deal. If so, would that help cause this price drop? That would make some sense.
Also, as of today I doubt we had 298 yet. Just my assumption.
Lightrock,
Reading your posts always give me a little clarity and comfort. The price action/share price is VERY confusing to me and many others. We all assumed there would be red days but that overall into June, the share price would continue rising up. It makes no sense.
I am further troubled by the apparent fact that 298 is no longer a material event. It changes my trading strategy (I'm not exactly sure just how at the moment). But I think it has spooked a lot of people. Bio stocks are notorious for blindsiding investors with poor news that crushes the stock. I think many have left because of this fear. I've personally seen it happen before but was wise enough to see the signs and removed most of my positions before they went bankrupt.
I'm trying to get a phone call set up with Gavin to have a chat and discuss some of my issues. (If you have any questions you'd like me to ask please feel free to suggest them)
With all that said, numbers don't lie. That's the main thing keeping my head on straight at this point. If I remember correctly, 2 weeks ago was the last time Geert definitely publicly said 298 has not happened. Even as of then, we should already be past 10%. Unless survival is much stronger (i.e. 70% after 3 years) than we thought.
I just hate that they flip flopped on the 298 issue. Gavin personally told me it was material. Now it isn't. Were they just assuming it was? If so, what else are they assuming things on? This post sounds negative, I'm not trying to do that, I'm still a bull and long and holding. But I am being critical here. I think that is justified.
If we could have a double bottom reversal in price back up from here that would quell a lot of my fears. But I do agree with you. Things look good on the stats side, but the share price is... wrong.
Sab,
EDIT: After reading MPJs response. Defer to his updated knowledge. Weird that it contrasts with what Gavin said to me. Still not worried. But interesting they had two different opinions on the material finding. Nonetheless, it does sound like they will want to notify investors quickly still which is positive to me. They don't plan on sitting on this information for too long.
Original Post of Mine:
Lightrock and CVMibelieve did a great job of responding. But I'll add my two cents as well. I personally called Gavin with investor relations at Cel-Sci in March. I SPECIFICALLY asked him about how they would announce the 298 events. He told me "the 298 events WILL be a material finding" and that "They will want to announce that as quickly as they can". He did say that they will have to talk to the SEC and their team about the best way to present that information to investors and the public. But basically the gist I got is that they won't be sitting on that information for too long. He stated multiple times that they do need to announce this since it is a "material finding".
The team at CVM is already bullish on this. If it takes 3 months to get a final data readout why would they hide this information when they could be promoting it since they already are positive. It would make zero sense for them not to release it as quickly as possible.
I personally believe that we still haven't hit 298. I personally believe that when we do, we will see an announcement a week or two after at the most. I personally believe we are already now past 10%. I bought more shares today.
I understand the price action right now is freaking people out. But we are still over $2 where we were in March. And I think there is a combination of shorts desperately pushing stock price down and hedge funds manipulating/buying cheap shares. But what I doubt is going on is that people who "know something no one else knows" are selling out. Hope that helps sway your current thinking. :)
Also going along with Sushis post on information. Geert said NO DILUTION. Half of us on this board expected him to say that. But for the other half. Here is your answer. :)
Fosco isn't May 15th the date for passing even higher UK SOC survival?
Did anyone catch this in the letter to shareholders this morning?
"WE BELIEVE! We believed when there was little data supporting our belief. We believe now even more than before. "
I may be reading too much into this but the first sentence says "We believed when there was little data supporting our belief" Which would seem to imply that without saying it outright the second sentence is saying "We believe now (when there is a ton of data supporting our belief).
Regardless of whether they have actual numbers on the event rates, I would bet that they have some more valuable information on cancer rates, immunotherapy, survival, etc. that is showing them that Multikine is going to work.
Exciting times. We all said back in January and February and March that April May and June were going to get very interesting very quick. This is it. More to come.
Lightrock,
Thanks for the speculation. I really hope within this year we have a day where we all go "Wow! Multikine works THAT well?! And is worth HOW much again now??"
My personal, uneducated, price target based on a successful readout would be $100-$200 short term. Could even be higher but I'm trying to be realistic.
Today was a great day. Maybe we see $10 by June.
Lightrock,
I was referring to after it reports, if successful at a 25% increase. That would be more than double what they were shooting for. Would it double the value? The buyout/value potential on CVM is beyond my expertise so I was hoping someone on here could give me a realistic idea on what that might be worth if we got that good of an increase in survival.
As far as the value of CVM before the readout, I believe we hit somewhere between $10-$20.
Sushi,
So this is just my personal opinion, I obviously could be very wrong. I would prefer that things end sooner than later, but again time is on our side now.
As far as what Ergomed said, I have a feeling it is more along the lines of an estimated guess. Just like when CVM updated the trial to say ending Sept 2019. I think we are nearing the finish line here but not quite there. Remember, back in December and January we had lots of reports claiming the study would end in the first quarter of 2019, that obviously didn't happen :)
The main reason I believe we are trending towards October is because of Foscos spreadsheet (I've linked to it below), mainly spreadsheet number 4, the one calibrated with the real events data from Taiwan. I really feel that as time goes on his spreadsheets seem more and more accurate. This is why:
After all the research and various studies people have brought up and I've looked at, I believe that our average SOC survival is probably somewhere around 60-65% for 3 years. Even with no real advancements in treatment for 60 years, there still has to be some increase in overall survival. A 5-10% increase seems reasonable.
Also, the IDMC meeting in March was telling in a few ways imo. It told us, the study isn't over, which is great obviously. But it also told us there isn't a clear cut winner here yet. That would make a lot of sense as far as the October numbers go since we would need a little more time for there to be a clear cut difference. I think that difference is becoming apparent more and more now. By July they should be able to tell for sure what's happening.
It will be really interesting if we can get some new numbers from Taiwan this May to line things up better. Those numbers would be VERY telling. If they line up to Foscos spreadsheet still then we are golden.
The only thing that would screw us over is if survival is just absurdly higher, above 65-70% for 3 years. I just don't believe that.
That's my serious answer. I'd love to be wrong in the way that SOC survival is still under 60% and we end in June after the data becomes clear. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Ergomed and ending first half of 2019.
Link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qW36sMXgKvx2_76GPF3fjmXFYApgsOUq0vU1qlumz6w/edit#gid=1683645669
Fosco (anyone else is welcome too)
As time goes on, it looks more and more like we may get to October with a 25% improvement for Multikine. IF so. What would you price the stock at?
Robotdroid,
I understand your feelings. Patience is extremely hard when we are blinded and shooting for answers in the dark. Maybe I can help ease your frustration with my favorite quote from the presentation today by Geert. (About min 31)
Geert:
"What has been the great progress since Nixon has declared war on cancer? The great progress is now Keytruda. Keytruda extends life by a few months in what was about 25% of patients. Is that the great progress?!"
Not only is that an awesome diss against Keytruda, it also shows what his goal for Multikine is. Something much better, a cure for some entirely.
CVM is shooting for intent to cure (at least some patients) here. If Geert is a trickster as some people claim, he has bought into his own lies himself. When he speaks he sounds like he can only say so much because of legalities, and he sounds like he truly believes in this.
Link to presentation replay.
http://wsw.com/webcast/thinkequity/cvm/
Pijoe and Lightrock,
Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Sounds like it's just a waiting game. I keep buying the small dips even at these higher prices to keep myself interested and sane.
Not only do I hope Multikine is a success because we would all make a lot of money. I really hope it works fantastically well for all new cancer patients. I really would like to bet on a company that makes the world a better place.
I'm always watching for new news or thinking of new angles to try to better predict this outcome. I will keep you all posted of anything I come up with.
Lightrock,
If we really end up going until Fall, wouldn't there be some point that they halt this study and recommend a fast track for approval? Foscos numbers (if I remember correctly) predicted that if we run until October we would be at least at a 25% increase over SOC. Wouldn't it be unethical for them to continue running this study that long if the numbers were that good?
My personal prediction now (it keeps changing as time goes on) is that going along with what your monte carlo models said, the IDMC wanted to wait until June to get good data separation to be sure. They either have a plan to revisit CVM at the end of June or they wait until August again (6 months from the last meeting in March) and see that Multikine is working extremely well and halt the study.
At this point, unless the standard of care survival is just insanely better than anyone predicted. Time is showing us that Multikine is working and even surpassing our best survival models. I understand events take time, but at some point you have to either believe or not believe. Every time a new issue has come up, it's been answered positively. Until new events happen, the only thing I can do now is wait.
Also, May has a lot of news catalysts coming up. I'm most interested to see the new positions. I'm thinking we had some large buys from tutes in April.
Lightrock,
Yes thank you :) I get the general concept. Basically just another thing to complicate things further.
But I got curious and got lost in a google search about global survival rates and how they vary for various cancers. The best link I could find was this one:
Global improvement in #cancer survival but international differences still very wide— latest data from #CONCORD3 https://t.co/TCcGseeCu1 pic.twitter.com/6oZgRMfjaz
— The Lancet (@TheLancet) January 30, 2018
Lightrock,
Didn't have much more to say on this for now, just wanted to say thanks for the responses.
Sushi,
This seer data doesn't break down stage 3 & 4 specifically but it does separate by stage distribution. Lightrock thinks (speculative) that stage 3 &4 would be around the regional/distant stages.
Cotton,
Could you also ask a speculative question like "If someone was diagnosed today with stage 3 or 4 head and neck cancer, what would you think would be a fair survival rate for 3-5 years?"
Even if this oncologist doesn't specialize in head and neck cancer, I feel that they would have a much better idea than the rest of us on what is a good survival rate for current standard of care. I'd love to hear their thoughts.
Lightrock,
That is comforting to know. One more clarifying question. At the bottom of the stats it shows for all stages, would "Localized/Regional/Distant" be for all stages or would it contain only stages 3 & 4? Or should I disregard that as well since we are stage 3 & 4 with multiple tumors and lymph nodes infected.
Stage Surivavl %:
All Stages 64.8%
Localized 83.7%
Regional 65.0%
Distant 39.1%
Unstaged 49.2%
Also, I'm looking forward to cottons response. I hope his oncologist tells us what 3-5 year survival rates are.
Lightrock,
I have a question about the seer statistics you posted a link to a few days ago.
You seemed happy with the stats it was showing but I'm a little confused. When I look at the table (20.10, pg. 33) for Cancer of the Oral Cavity and Pharynx the 5 year survival for the most recent dates (2008-2014) say 67%. That seems extremely high and much better than our spreadsheets are predicting for.
Am I misreading this? If not, wouldn't we presume that the SOC survival rates for 3-5 years are much higher than 55%?
I'm just trying to understand and be critical here.
Link to the stats page you posted are below.
Thanks,
https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2015/results_merged/topic_survival.pdf
Lightrock
I completely agree with your questions on this news event. The two that are of most interest to me are 2 & 3.
2) Specifically, are these new options they are diluting the share price with? Or are these for stocks that are currently available?
3) The expiration date for 2029 is VERY far out. That gives me pause... I'll have to think on this one for a bit.
Fosco,
Always love exchanging thoughts, useful info and ideas.
I have a question which is purely speculative and not advice for anyone.
IF the study ended next week. And you had to bet on successful or failure. What would you say?
IF it ends June would that change?
For me personally. Here are my answers.
I don't quite feel that we are past the number hurdles for me to feel completely comfortable about betting the farm on this stock if the study were to end next week. But if it ends June I feel like that's the last time related hurdle for success. Yes it could fail after that but I feel like that's beyond my knowledge. We hit June and I feel that we have a 90% chance of success regardless of anything.
Fosco
You're a gem. I knew what countries we were in but didn't know about the trial sites.
Thank you on the spreadsheet update. I did my own back in August and came to mid February for success. But since then we have narrowed things down a lot more.
I would still like to see us get to May 15th, just to put the cherry on top for comfort. That's your date for success even with the best survival rates. If we hit May with no news on events, I may just start buying daily.
Random thoughts:
1) I do wonder if the IDMC saw an improvement in their latest meeting (not over 298 events, but just an improvement between the two arms), but like Lightrock said, want to see the data until June since this is when we get good separation.
2) Sometimes people believe that there are these hedge funds/investors with much better information/intelligence than us. But often in life I find that most people don't have a clue what's going on. I think we have a good hive mind going on here where we are kicking off the extremes and narrowing things down to a fairly accurate idea here. I guess what I'm saying is, all of us as a group have put a lot of time, money, and intelligence into this stock research. Even though some may disagree, I think we have just as good of a guess as anyone out there as to whether Multikine is/will be successful.
3) Nothing is ever a given, nothing is for certain here. But fortune favors the bold.
Fosco,
Two questions from your back and forth with Spidey.
1. You said 60% of patients in CVM trial are in developing countries? Do we know this for sure? I must have missed that. Could you link me to the proof showing that percentage?
2. If you think we have about 6-7% dropouts and 50% average 5 year survival, where would we be at with overall survival? Have you updated a new spreadsheet to look at the numbers? What date would we be looking at for 10% overall improvement?
Thanks,
Very good point, that was silly of me to suggest that CVM is waiting
Found fast track approval numbers!
“Ultimately, the Fast Track program has been deemed a success, with approximately two thirds of all 770 Fast Track requests approved by the FDA from 2007 to 2015, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).”
This means from 2007 to 2015 about 513 requests out of 770 for fast track have been approved. That’s actually a lot more than I thought it would be...
Thoughts?
I’ve posted the link below again. The whole article is worth a read but the specific source I quoted is found in paragraph 9 :)
https://www.centerwatch.com/news-online/2017/10/01/fda-fast-track-designations-reach-20th-year-2/