Fur, normally I would say it's a scam for an OTC but not this one. I know why they went OTC to begin with and not NYSE or NASDAQ, most of it has to do with the tax structure of the corporation. It suited them then but no longer...with the recent influx of talent and corp profile they will uplist to a larger exchange to acquire easier funding to broaden the pipeline. And reality is until the company is selling a product with a stream of revenue, stock dilutions will come. It is not a bad thing for a good biotech corp. ONCS is a good biotech corp., this is not a golden parachute program for profs to retire after teaching. I can tell you right here and now Punit and his dads intent is to build up the company and sell it, period. No doubt in my mind that is his intent. He's following the recipe to a "T".
Nevertheless, the frustration level will grow even more severely as the market keeps taking hits through October and hopefully by the grace of above we will see some nice PPS movement.
Another factor which has hurt many small biotechs is the fact that large monopoly biotechs have been getting fast track and approval left and right. This tends to harm not benefit smaller biotechs PPS's. A lot of money is pulled out and or distrust in the competitive edge hence shorts mentioning Merck or Baxter or Pfizer etc., but what they don't realize is that these big pharma corps do not want to cure people, they want to to treat them as many times as they may to make a lot of money. How do I know? We used to reduce concentrations of many small molecule products and add tons of excipients to broaden the profit margin. Ethically, wrong. Business-wise it was cut in the cocaine (B-12) so to speak and that is how one makes money. I found it wrong but the Program Managers were given marching orders. I know for a fact that some drugs molecules we made were so strong one cycle could easily wipe out a stage II, but no, that was bad for sales. Nope, they said to lighten the dosage up and usually made us do it by questioning our design risk analysis, that was the message. You went against it you got shown the door.
In this matter, I really believe this company wants a niche and in order to achieve it it must show above and beyond therapeutic efficiency. I believe they have and will continue and you have to remember like the oil industry there are a lot of big names that are purposely antagonizing new technology and denouncing it even if its better because its bad for their strong hold. There are a lot of medicines out there being held back from the market because of the mafia lobbyist from the insurance companies and large biotechs. take Cesium 133 for example, great stuff, excellent resource for various therapies but you have the big gorillas throwing a bone to the EPA never mind the FDA or colloidial silver which i have seen under a microscope absolutely demolish Hep B or Rhino or Strep., and on and on and on...
No, this small company has to become a threat and in order to do it it must ride INO as the bull and allow the public to digest new treatment options. Eventually as the success stories and data pile up, some company will finally nab ONCS and say: "we were wrong all along, this stuff is great!" The question will be who is following ONCS the closest? That is the company to watch. If they partner with ONCS they may eventually outright buy them if the product is a success.
