CJ, thank you for the extreme effort.
First thought after skimming the date-lined PRs you provided?"Yippee!"
Second thought? How linear the narrative of PPHM CEO SK. All his PPHM anti-viral (HIV)discussions were positive, and became more positive with time. All the PRs struck me as thoughtful and truthful [as in an "ethical pharmaceutical house"]; well-couched, well-hedged, and solid strategically. SK intimated (nee promised) that anti-PS has awesome antiviral properties--that anti-PS has a gigantic future.
So Bavi and Bavi's offspring have a bright and hopefully future as well. The "crackpot/GatesFoundation/theorists" look more credible as "The Moving Hand than even Roche, at this point. I hope Dr. Seuss strikes SK dead if he is lying, or he gets sacked if he's only being overly enthusiastic, but the lure and line SK is spinning re. Bavi anti-viral would make any fish bite.
Is the whole idea/concept sensible? Yes.
He says our (PPHM/UTSW) investigators and DukeU/GatesFoundation group have "moved on" in collaborations re. anti-PS therapy since submitting a publication to Nature Magazine re. anti-PS v. HIV. Weeks pass while an author awaits the vote of the group of "peers".
SK said, "things have moved on since submitting the paper". Translated: "Pockets must be lined, and in proportion to the expected bigness of a new drug." How many reviewers can possibly be up to speed on anti-PS science? How will they be "lobbied"? Who pays their grants? Where are they in the big Pharma web?
What should stockholder strategy be?
PPHM's last fiscal year was convincing. Am I "all in?" No. Bought BMY a couple days ago. Do I have reservations about PPHM? A few. Time frame. Wondering about the problems with Bavi and hepatitis. Could be that killing hepatitis virus kills too many liver cells.
What would I be doing in the lab right now? Missile Bavi will require not only humanization, which is being dealt with [i.e. Affitec], but also an improved guidance system. We're talking even more specificity. Double-armed Bavi will speed through the bloodstream with an MAB missile seeking inverted-PS cells with one fist, and with the other a specific-HIV- seeking coupling for docking sites on HIV-infected cells.
You know what they would have me doing in Thorpe's lab? Counting how many zillions of inverted-PS cells there are inside a 100kg. cancer patient with AIDS, herpes, and human papilloma virus...etc...and how to direct the wonderful new anti-PS seeker.
Strategically, we have three players at the MAB table now.
No question. The anti-PS strategy is too compelling to credit naysayers. There is no plausible deniability.
Where is PPHM in the MAb cancer treatment troika? IMO, integral.
Why? Virtually ALL solid tumors can be attacked with Bavi.
Major competition: MEDX/BMY: Humanized anti-EGF MAB, a good ticket. It will be used. BMY got it right finally.
Avastin? A goner. History. When? When DNA 'fesses up to 2C3 and Bavi. Checkmate.
Surface agents: MEDX's AntiEGF + PPHM BAVI MABs.
Vascular agents: PPHM's 2C3 + PPHM Bavi
Core cell agent: PPHM's anti-TNT MAB
PPHM on every line of attack.
Caviat: Surface cancer cells may remain even after Bavi does its job. They don't need blood supply. Nourished by surrounding tissue fluid osmosis. What then? MEDX's anti-EGF. And the dormant cancer cells at the necrotic tumor core? Too far inside for an anti-vascular agent to reach? Tarvacin. The irony? The economy. Guns or butter.
