News Focus
News Focus
Followers 140
Posts 11663
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/15/2011

Re: Bungler post# 157063

Sunday, 01/19/2014 12:01:30 PM

Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:01:30 PM

Post# of 347009
Bungler, I understand. Thanks, I didn't know that.

Merck would still have to deliver the substance, do they?

Or would PPHM (say Avid) produce PD-1 themselves just for there pre-clinical trials? How are they ever going to be sure it is the real thing? The Merck patents covering PD-1 will probably give much information but maybe not all parameters (without using a range) and since PD-1 is approved I figured Merck would not yet have to disclose this to any other party (except maybe the FDA) and that every party that does know (e.g. a CRO that worked for Merck) would be under some kind of non-disclosure.

It would of course be great if PPHM didn't need them at all and could just start doing its thing. Pre-clinical done for CTLA-4, then PD-1 and then an approval for the NSCLC PIII so Bavi would be an approved substance for at least one condition.

Next the step to challenge CTLA 4+Bavi against CTLA 4 alone and PD-1+Bavi against PD-1 alone would be easy. The Bavi version would become SOC for the NEW TREATMENTS of cancer!


Peregrine Pharmaceuticals the Microsoft of Biotechnology! All In My Opinion. I am not advising anything, nor accusing anyone.

Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y