4OUR, re-read CP's classic posts
1 - The naysayers are slinking away...quietly
2 - Haven't heard "Bavi is a placebo" in MONTHS
3 - ASCO 2013 was ALL ABOUT immunologics with Bavi smack central
4 - EOP2 was supposed to a fiasco; instead, it went smoothly
5 - PPHM knows more than ever about how to combine AND time Bavi
6 - Bavi needs immunostimulatory chemo to generate brilliant results
7 - Bavi 2nd line kicked butt, one, because of docetaxel (immunostimulatory) and two, because of the PS extroversion that resulted from first-line chemo
8 - PIII approval is for...guess what? Second-line bavi plus docetaxel; (awesome set-up for PPHM)
9 - UPMC is really world-renowned (first kidney transplant; first-class oncology center; biostrategic defense) and THEY feature Bavi prominently ???!!!
10 - All IP owned 100% by PPHM? Oh yeah, baby.
In short, hold tight.
We've never been in this position before.
Here's my assessment:
It has been unequivocally proven beyond doubt that the error is NON-attributable to PPHM, and in fact originated in a third-party pharmaceutical trial-processing facility called CSM in Fargo, ND. The Street still blames PPHM for the error (as you, unfortunately, do as well).
Making money in biotech means being invested before the hoards rush in. PCYC, ARNA, CLSN (before it crashed), and MNKD are all examples of stocks that languished at a $1.50 price point for AGES, right up to the point where they burned through the roof and blew past all investor expectations.
PPHM investors are convinced that immunologics are the leading salient in biotech oncology at this time, and that Bavi holds great promise as a potent immunomodulator. Interestingly, the timing and combination of Bavi with other chemotherapeutics has become increasingly crucial. When combined with immunosuppressive chemotherapy, results have been found wanting. However, when combined with immunostimulatory chemo, (such as docetaxel), Bavi has performed brilliantly.
Nay-sayers will point to supposed censuring of patients under Bavi's different regimens, accusing PPHM of essentially "cherry-picking" their results. Sorry, but that's not how Dr. Robert Garnick (of Genentech/Roche fame) works. Quite conversely, the majority of studies with Bavi involved some of the WORST patient populations in their trials.
Partial and Complete responses were seen in breast cancer studies presented at ASCO 2013. The EOP2 meeting for second -line NSCLC with the FDA was described as "straight-forward" and "really no big deal", with PPHM effectively putting the third-party labeling error behind them (despite the Street's obsession.)
While I can most definitely appreciate your prudence with the "good-looking" PPHM, Frederick the Great also applies: "L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace."
The "cut, burn, and poison" approach to cancer has failed over the past 40 years with many cancer PFS rates shockingly stagnant. No real progress has been made, despite a few exceptions.
The new salient is to boost the immune system and perhaps, more importantly, to first prevent the tumor micro-environment from shutting it down in the first place.
Either you decide to board this train early, or you don't. Paradigm shifts aren't paradigm shifts anymore when everyone "gets" it. Either you're ahead of the curve or behind it.
Good luck.
AI
