Replies to post #245651 on Avid Bioservices Inc (CDMO)

[jimsgtx]

You two are great!! I see the light at the end of the tunnel.. eom.

[tradero]

Thanks Golfho for your insight.

Yes, it is very interesting that our projections give quite similar results.

Anyway, a model is just a tool that can give us some rough estimates, it can never fit 100% reality. So your warning not to make an investment decision based on these predictions is very appropriate.
It actually made me laugh :-).

Nevertheless it can give us some sort of reference point.
Cheers

[md1225]

Yes thank you tradero! Thank you Golfo! Our time is coming wayyyyyy over due!! Once fully enrolled press release the clock starts ticking and the investment firms start buying!

[Protector]

golfho, thanks. All simulations, statements, calculations, etc seem indeed to end up in Q1 of 2016 for the first look-in.

As I posted before I redid my simulations by ONLY changing the months based on Herbst et al. 2010 and then I also end up in H1/2016 actually March-April in my case but still.

I would be in favour to see Yervoy trials (and all CTLA-4 for that matter, not specifically Yervoy) to an end. It will yield info that PPHM will use to indeed confirm if what Dr. Brekken saw with the mice dying from old age is in some way, and at the same extend (100%), happening with humans.

Personally I DO NOT expect that BECAUSE if UTSW would only have enrolled say 16 patients and the 8 that get Yervoy+Bavi would get cured as did the mice then I think PPHM would have referred to the SOC being changed as the reason for UTSW to stop the trial. I also think there may be some 'intended' difficulty to come by Yervoy, certainly after the AstraZeneca deal.

I think that given the results from anti-PD-L1 the others may quickly fade out. IMO PPHM made a good strategic decision to go for an anti_PD-L1 and with a vendor that has ALL INTEREST to supply them swiftly in order to catch up in the IO race.

2016 will be an interesting year.