InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 49
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/11/2003

Re: nuke661 post# 243757

Thursday, 11/26/2015 9:37:34 AM

Thursday, November 26, 2015 9:37:34 AM

Post# of 345725
Thank you, nuke, for laying out the Opdivo results very clearly. I completely agree with your statement:

It seems very clear to me that Opdivo ought to be shaking in its boots because Bavi+Docetaxel is clearly a threat all by themselves to equal Opdivos MOS numbers and if Bavi delivers on its pre-clincal ability to induce inate immunity to cancer then Opdivo's numbers are going to fade fast in impressiveness (all IMO).

This has been my frustration with another poster's tendency to misstate Opdivo's actual results. If I didn't know better I might conclude someone from BMS were composing those misleading statements, but, of course, that would be my impression and my impression only because I keep thinking, who stands to gain from from creating confusion with disinformation?

Nuke, I also want to thank you (and tradero, golfho and others) for your diligent effort to track and project the potential trajectory of the Ph III results. Here again, in my opinion, there seems to be an effort by some to create uncertainty, if not suspicion, as to the ability of the PPHM team to bring the trial to a timely, if not early, conclusion. For instance, as I look back upon Opdivo's approval path, I believe it went from Ph II conclusion (end 2014) to approval (March 2015) in 3 months, via various accelerated review methods also available to PPHM. Just saying . . .

And speaking of turkeys, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

Go Packers.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CDMO News