Comments on Thorpes' talk at the NY Academy of Sciences:
I strongly recommend everyone listen, and then listen again to Thorpes' talk at the NY Academy of Sciences. The slides that are available with this talk are beautiful and the ones that were removed (at Thorpes' specific request) have to do IMO with either updating or ongoing work and scientific papers yet to be presented. The entire audio is of course available as is the Q and A.
Thorpe is an awesome individual and any one who listened to this presentation and the Q and A can realize how powerful the underlying intellectual achievement has been to date. I am still of the long held opinion that Thorpe will be nominated and win a Nobel Prize in medicine. He may win for advances in cancer therapy or "for other reasons" like seminal work on the cell surface, advances in medical imaging, work on potentiating the immune system, etc.. (As an aside Einstein never won the Nobel for the Theory of Relativity but actually won for his work on "Brownian Motion" .)
From a PPHM shareholder point of view Thorpes' work on understanding the MOA of bavi will IMO go a long way at the FDA when the time comes to advance the drug to market.
As you know it was my privilege to attend this particular talk and I was accompanied by several investment type friends as well as a couple of scientific types. One of my acquaintances actually runs an NIH facility and was particularly helpful in allowing us to get the right perspective on the science. He thinks PPHM is in the forefront of the approach that utilizes the immuno system to attack cancers.
Other than in my set, I do not believe there were any investment types present. The audience was filled with scientific types. IMO the science is in the early stages of leaking out to medical advisors for large investment firms. This is an osmotic process that will take some time.
I was surprised that most shareholders did not realize George Zavoico was a host/organizer for this presentation. Though he is associated with a small investment firm (MLV), my opinion of Zavoico as a knowlegeable analyst is on the rise. His questions on the cc have been increasingly astute IMO.
There was a reception after the presentation and we were able to chat briefly with Dr. Thorpe and later with two of his key researchers . It was during these chats that I was first able to really internalize the potential of bavi with radiation. I look forward to a long increase in IP value in this area and IMO the discussions to date on this board have been far too limited in their perspective. This also speaks to my opinion that the IP portfolio of PPHM is vastly expanding beyond what shareholders are focused on as milestone events over the next six months or a year.
If you do take the time to listen to this presentation pay particular attention to the Q and A. The following inquiries were of interest to me:
1. One question was about sorafenib in combo with bavi and IMO the answer bodes well for liver cancer and partnering in liver cancer. This particular cancer might work as a geographic deal should PPHM go that route.
2. There was a question that revealed Dr. Thorpes' contention that "immunity" was induced in some mouse experiments. This is a big step up from "MOS" and IMO is the starting point for all kinds of research that would be of use in humans and therefore could lead to large value creation.
3. I liked the question about whether bavi might work better on sicker patients rather than 1st line patients because I was interested in whether success in 2nd line NSCLC could be off labeled to the much larger 1st line NSCLC population. Thorpe didn't think it seemed to matter and gave the now oft quoted response that "they are all pretty sick". IMO this answer speaks for itself re off label.
4. I also liked the question about doxy being the most effective chemo with bavi. Thorpes' answer that bavi works well also with Paxy, Carbo, and Gemcitabine speaks again to his opinion of the breadth of this drug and this approach. (Thorpe does seem to have a special affection for doxy when further questioned IMO)
5. Lastly, I liked the question about the relative value of the human mab versus the chimeric mab. I was interested in such mundane investment ideas as "shelf life", cost of production, ease of mass production, availability of ingredients, etc. etc.. Dr Thorpes' response that chimeric mabs were fine was very encouraging.
I hope these opinions will be helpful with your "longer term" investment perspective.
Best Regards,
RRdog
