A response to Tasso on yahoo for conversation sake :)
Hey Tasso, why the need for a buyout? Other than it is what makes short-term investors happy. Personally, and I've stated this before, that licensing to multiple companies, for multiple drugs, over multiple indications is where the long term money is to be made. I believe that is why OncoSec positioned themselves to evaluate immunopulse, in combination with the PD-1 drug in the trial.
Looking for companies to “partner” with (not be “Bought out” by), I believe, has been according to a business plan. I say this because They are looking to demonstrate the increase of TILs using the best PD-1, of which, “Keytruda” happens to be the best at present.
IF they demonstrate top-line data with a top-of-the-line PD-1 like Keytruda...imagine what other companies will be thinking, “how can ImmunoPulse enhance our PD-1, PD-L1?” Not to mention companies like HEAT biologics, seeing the potential with their alternative immunotherapy drugs. I'm going on record (but more than willing to be wrong) to say OncoSec is positioning itself (everyone's opinion of Punit, notwithstanding) to be an industry leader in solid tumor oncology.
The upside potential is far greater than many short termer's here have the vision for while they play for pennies --- Hense the proliferation of the bashers on the when's and won'ts of the upswings and downswings of PPS.
ImmunoPulse alone (forget about IL-15 and the rest of their R&D immunotherapy puzzle pieces), is so well positioned in this scientific niche of increasing TIL's and enhancing responses, both in the quality and quantity of patients who would otherwise have their cancer kicked down the road to surgery, radiation, lower efficacy, lower Over All Response chances, higher costs, etc., etc., is a SLEEPER in this budding Immunotherapy Advancement.
OncoSec holds (at present) the scientific lead in potentially enhancing almost ALL OTHER CANCER DRUGS to function with greater safety and efficacy to the unreached non-responder masses. If you not clear on this, just look up clinicaltrials.gov and type in Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocyte, and notice there is not a single trial able to produce a measurable increase of TIL's like OncoSec's pilot study in Triple Negative Breast Cancer and Head and Neck Cancer.
And take note, the non-responder percentage represents ONLY the drugs in the Anti-PD1. In Some cases a PD-L1 drug yield a better clinical outcome, but they will desire enhancement of their patient populations as well.
THE UNMET MEDICAL NEED
Anti-PD1 non-responders constitute the majority of patients, even in “immune therapy” tractable tumors
***Non-Response
Melanoma ~ 60 - 80%
Triple Negative Breast (TNBC)~ 70% - 82%
Renal Cell Carcinoma of the kidney (RCC)~ 71%
Lung Carcinoma (NSCLC)~ 79 – 83%
Head and Neck (H&N)~ 80%
Bladder~ 84%
With a solid foundation of results showing that immunopulse in creases TIL's as evidenced by Dr. Alain Algazi's article that I posted yeasterday, the problem won't be with TIL production, but rather, synergy in the combination themselves. By synergy I mean by definition: “the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements.”
This is what OncoSec is working toward—a synergistic platform to be licensed to empower multiple cancer indications and the drugs that serve them.
The Google board has put a present valuation of $1 billion as of today. That's a $4 PPS.
I'd like to offer my evaluation for where OncoSec is heading. This is from a post I put together back in late Noverber and noting has changed except other companies wishing to collaborated with us.
I'll use six cancer indications that I lifted from Oncosec presentation slides. It will include the number of cases per year in that indication the percentage of non-responders, the number that that yields, The total number of available non-responders.
*These are new cases every year...
Melanoma = 76,000, 70% non-responders comes to 53,200
Renal cell (Kidney) carcinoma = 61,560, 70% non-responders comes to 43,092
Lung carcinoma = 220,000, 80% non-responders comes to 176,000
Head and neck cancer = 55,000, 80% non-responders comes to 44,000
Bladder cancer = 75,000, 75% non-responders comes to 76,250
Breast-cancer = 222,000, 75% non-responders comes to 166,500
Total number of non-responders = 557,510
Using lasers minimum cost per person per treatment of $20,000, multiplied by the total number of non-responders comes to an annual revenue of: $10,780,840,00-- divided by total number of shares of 245 million, comes to a PPS valuation of $40.57.
It's a very rough example on only six indications which are a ways off, but I think it's important to at least appreciate the potential of this company when considering only six indications and only non-responders. Oncosec is developing its own drugs and multiple indications and multiple combinations. The other consideration is to realize Biotech is often priced 3 to 4 times it's valuation and PPS.
It's just a selling point and a talking point to consider when people are hoping for a buyout for three dollars compared to what the market will actually value this company should the non-responder combination approach really comes through and be factored in to the company's worth.
