General comments on a weekend:
Everyone invested in PPHM share some of Frustrated's bitterness at the length of time and the "dilution during that time" engendered by the PPHM mgmt and BOD approach.
On the other hand, I think PPHMtoolong's comment on the authors and "fathers of success" in the most recent papers is really very telling. Everyone wants to get on this scientific bandwagon. AACR is accepting 7 papers from one of the smallest biotech companies in the world, Institutional IST activity is high, Thorpe has raised his profile and bet his reputation in a globe spanning series of lectures. IMO the future of cancer treatment may well be associated with cell surface technology and if you look at it that way, IMO PPHM OWNS THE BEST PATENTED POSITION ON THE CELL SURFACE.
The disconnect between the potential value of the science and the market capitalization of PPHM is enormous. PPHM mgmt/BOD refuse to sell cheap and that well is how it should be. Let's use the simpler example of Cotara and brain cancer/ glio. In this deadly unmet need the SOC really consists of gross radiation from external source or cutting into the patient brain and trying to remove tumors by surgery without additional damage and without leaving tumor fragments to grow again. IMO the PPHM approach of radiation emanating internally from the tumor and using a catheterized insertion technique is infinitely better than SOC almost QED prima facie.
Since the treatment for the disease may ultimately be worth a couple of billion dollars (not to mention additional value from using similar technique in other hard tumors), since PPHM has performed well in Phase I and II testing, since the catheter technique was developed by the NIH and is therefore very PC, since PPHM already has orphan drug and fast track status in this disease, and since the disease is fatal---why shouldn't PPHM face down the FDA. Whatever time it takes in this round to get the right protocol/SPA for Phase III to ensure partnering is worth the argument. (Postscript, PPHM is aided in this argument by some of the new imaging techniques also developed in Thorpe's lab. Thorpe reminds me a little of Einstein who didn't win the Nobel for Relativity but rather for studies on Brownian Motion. Thorpe may one day win a Nobel not for cell surface work but rather for imaging techniques.)
However, what if this battle is a long and drawn out affair while the FDA looks at every possible issue from choosing which surgical centers are allowed to handle the Phase III to how the radioactive isotopes are manufactured, packaged and transported along with a hundred other side issues I can't even imagine???? What is plan B??? This is where I am most critical of PPHM mgmt and BOD. Outside of Garnick, what other lobbyists does PPHM employ? What other regional venues could Cotara be sold in outside of FDA jurisdiction? What types of early stage deals with milestones could be made?? What massive educational and PR campaign could PPHM launch to increase share price and lessen dilution?? What other "bridge funding" techniques are available to PPHM aside from ATM-- which is as gross an approach to funding as surgery is to brain cancer??? What experts can be brought in to address these questions at the BOD level or advisory board level?? IMO I relish the battle at the FDA because it is worth doing but, I am appalled at PPHM lack of plan B.
NSCLC data is also worth waiting for. It is possible that the data is strong enough to motivate partners because the Phase II testing (unlike Cotara) is an FDA gold standard approach, double blind and randomized test in direct head to head competition with existing SOC. Good results here would give partners confidence
to move into Phase III with a high probability of successfully "repeating the experiment" which is the hallmark of scientific methodology and thus getting FDA approval for an NDA. NSCLC is a large disease with a big market and could be the tip of the iceberg for Bavi and funding from this would be all PPHM needs.
Again, I applaud PPHM for not selling cheaply but, again I would urge mgmt to advance a plan B. If nothing else, it would improve negotiating positions. Bridge financing is not "brain surgery". If PPHM wants us to believe they are capable of the latter then surely they should be able to figure something out better than ATM for the former. (Leveraging free cash flow from Avid still comes to mind)
Lastly, and this is a relatively minor thing but I can't help voicing the thought. Steve King is talking again in front of an "investment" audience at Cowen this week. Why not take a tip from a great performer like "Judy Garland", who, at the end of her performances would sit on the apron of the stage, legs dangling and talk to her audience. Her fans loved it. When Steve is finished with the usual dry scientific presentation, why not roll up his sleeves, completely surprise all the staid investors at the presentation, walk into the audience and with some real "enthusiasm" tell them in "plain English" what he really likes about all this science and what the real stakes, real values, and real risks and rewards there are in investing in PPHM. If you're not "enthusiastic" Steve why did you spend ten years of your life pursuing this thing??
Best Regards,
RRdog
