These are almost ALL pipelines from BP (Roche, Novartis, Merck, BMY, etc)
Bavituximab and Betabodies bind to PtdSer itself and gets the SAME effect. Whether you bind something on a PS receptor or on the PtdSer the result is that they BOTH can't bind to each other.
To bind ALL type of PS receptors that we know (and we may not even know them all) 13 substances would be needed. To bind to PtdSer one SINGLE substance, bavituximab or the full human version betabodies, suffices.
Besides that the bavituximab has value in that it ALSO (at the same moment with the OTHER side of the molecule so to speak) binds Fx-Gamma. Therefor PPHM blocks immune suppression (meaning the immune system is not KEPT from being activated) and AT THE SAME TIME Immune Stimulation (meaning the immune system is stimulating to activate).
Under the above conditions something can happen that otherwise, that is with blocking immune suppression alone, CANNOT happen and that is set-up our body for immune responses AFTER we are NO LONGER treated with Bavituximab or Betabodies. That is the effect that has now been reported from at least TWO sources claiming in THEIR reports that patients that had participated in the SUNRISE clinical trial and where afterwards in THEIR program performed better if they were part of the Bavituximab 3mg/kg arm.
So YES, for BP this has value. Either as a catch up for those that missed the boat (e.g. GILD, PFE en Janssens) or for those that are invested in Phosphatidylserine (we have seen today's post about Novartis on the subject) and want to avoid researching multiple substances to address all 13 above PS receptors and then one more at least for Fx-Gamma. Finally it will also be of value for those BP's that want to maintain there market share in PD-1, CTLA-4, CAR-T and others where it has been shown that PS-targeting conditioned the tumour environment making there drugs 100 to 200% more effective. In other words increasing the effective foot-print on patients of drugs that normally work on 20/30% of the people only and in combination with PS-targeting on 60+%. That is a VALUE PROPOSITION because the durus we are talking about have ALREADY been paid for and are approved. anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 better know by us on here as Keytruda, Opdivo, Durvalumab, etc are such drugs.
Also the work around biomarkers makes the next step toward approval way shorter, cheaper and easier. For a BP that means that the time to market and related cost is optimised before they step in.
And on top of all that a diagnostic tools, under the form of Exosome based liquid biopsy is available to, equally covered by IP PPHM owns. This will on its own bring the cost of further clinical trials down as it allows to detect, base-line and monitor progress related to cancers (all solid cancers).
Finally the results for Memorial Sloan Kettering about the combination of our PS-Targeting with CAR-T is another such value proposition. The biggest problem in CAR-T is the toxicity related to the application process. Now a report exists by Dr. Wolchok's lab that with PPHM's solution toxicity can be avoided. In other words that the toxicity that is normally added due to the application techniques IS ABSENT with PPHM technique.
CONCLUSION So the talk about value one must consider the above rather then letting one self drag into stories everything PPHM has is without value because Sunrise early stopped. BP looks through that and will not miss out, certainly not when in competition, on getting its hands on working technology as explained above. A fact that no BP has done so yet doesn't mean they didn't try. Many factors may have been at play, at both sides PPHM and the candidates. And they will for sure keep it all quite to avoid PPHM PPS up-runs, competition for still other BP's etc all things that would enforce PPHM negotiating position.
The biggest victory of someone that wants to steal all this from us would be to make us believe it is worthless based on message board statements rather then believing the currently more the 1500 papers on phosphatidylserine and the now available peer reviewer work on PPHM PS-targeting more specifically by world renowned institutions such a Rutgers (Dr. Birge), Memorial Sloan Kettering (Dr. Wolchok) the work at USTW by Dr. Brekken and Dr. Thorpe, Dr. Antonia's work at Moffit, Dr. Gabrilovich at Wistar, and so on. I'dd rather side with them then with anonymous posters that tell those scientists have it all wrong because Sunrise stopped. Many blockbuster drugs, such as Roche's Avastin, also went through many failed trials before becoming a blockbuster.
Unfortunately PPHM has in the current state of the Oncology market not the critical size nor pocket depth to still try to do it alone. So making a good deal around all that is what needs to be done. I think that at the latest at the ASM we will know details on such deal that will probably have been announced just before the ASM (SPECULATION).
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
