There is more coming, CJG. A further partial response follows.
Initially, it is interesting to compare Dr. Lias' Corporate Presentation of Avid/CDMO, delivered only by way of slides in San Francisco 1/08/2018, with the ASM Presentation slides now accompanied by Dr. Lias' oral remarks. There are differences in the slides and perhaps a re-ordering of pages[and contents of certain pages] of the respective presentations to reflect a slightly different priority and focus.
Hawkfan posted that my comments to the CDMO BOD at the ASM last Thursday morning seemed to him impassioned. I was not aware of that quality in my remarks. I did try to portray facts, as I knew them, to the BOD, with suggestions as to what that BOD should do to bring increased value to CDMO, PPHM and SH assets/share value or $$$price.
Frankly, those facts and remarks seemed to me to fall on deaf ears---the stolid, expressionless faces of BOD members while I spoke made me feel I was talking to an army or array of Chinese stone soldiers. I was pleased to see one BOD member take notes during my presentation(I hope it was not a grocery list for his wife when he returned home). It was like delivering remarks to a judicial bench of judges who were not sufficiently informed of the record[history] before them to know what questions to ask.
I began explaining that we had invested in past years some $550k in PPHM therapy technology, and once had ~ 500k shares of PPHM with a break-even point of $1.10/share. Now, with a reverse split behind us together with a change in focus and name of PPHM to CDMO, we hold ~73 shares CDMO with a break-even point of ~ $7.70/share.I expressed my own opinion that the individual new BOD members had the qualifications necessary to bring CDMO share price/value well beyond the above $7.70 eventually. I was a bit dismayed to see from the slides that revenues might increase to $200 million by 2022 from >$100 million in 2018. The identity of further customers signed by Avid/CDMO since January 2017 was not further explained.
For now, I will not belabor my previous comments as to what Dr. Jedd Wolchok and other MSKCC personnel have told me in face-to-face conversations at SITC 2016, Wistar(December 7, 2016), AACR 2017 or JHU in Baltimore(December 7, 2017). Nor will I expand my comments re conversations had with Dr NK(PPHM/CDMO) or Dr. TK(PFM) at SITC in November 2017. My remarks are already recorded here, and my comments last week to the CDMO BOD contain basically the same information, including the fact that PFM has acquired $200 million in additional funds and has >1000 employees world-wide.
I did respond to a GILD/KITE email I received this morning from SA in the following manner---it reflects my current thoughts as to what may transpire for all of us here. It has become somewhat more apparent to me that Dr. Wolchok would have identified JUNO as the "company" in Baltimore had I asked: "What company do you think would implement the clinical trial design that has been prepared to further the pre-clinical data and conclusions reflected in AACR poster # 1651". Again, I caution that may not be the particular clinical trial design that Dr. Wolchok had in mind when we spoke in Q&A following his 1/7/2017 Baltimore JHU presentation:
" CELG has purchased all of JUNO.
Look carefully now @ 2017 AACR MSKCC/PPHM poster # 1651 for data showing additional safety provided by PPHM Bavituximab family MAB in pre-clinical melanoma model—-a solid tumor field any of CELG/JUNO or NVS or GILD/KITE wishes to enter, separate and apart from hematological malignancies. Renowned melanoma KOL, MSKCC’s Dr. Jedd Wolchok, is a co-author of that poster #1651 with other members of his Ludwig Cancer Center laboratory. That poster # 1651 summary is: “PS targeting can be combined with CAR T cells to enhance anti-tumor potential,” and “promote tumor regression without off-target side effects”.
Dr. Jedd Wolchok is known to have close ties to JUNO as a member of its SAB. The safety of CAR T therapy remains a concern, as Dr. Wolchok explained at his Wistar presentation in Philadelphia in December 2016 and re-emphasized in his Baltimore JHU presentation in December 2017.
IMO, an auction process or bidding war may come to be in play to acquire or license PPHM/UTSW immuno-therapy assets among any of above companies wishing to explore further the safety provided by the Bavituximab family platform.
Last week, China's BGNE acquired $750 million in additional funds---its CEO is a UTSW Ph.D., and has close ties with UTSW, the owner of many patents relating to PS targeting to which PPHM holds an exclusive license. CELG has already licensed many of its molecules to BGNE for use in China."
