Replies to post #161394 on Biotech Values

[Robert C Jonson]

The second major issue is that they are targeting solid tumors by cutting off blood flow....

Roy, Dave may be a great guy, but he doesn't know ANYTHING about Bavi. Frankly, what he says about it is laughable.

[honestabe13]

shame on anybody for depending on david sobek's analysis of a biotech with these credentials, from his 'seeking alpha' bio:

'I have a PhD in political science and have been investing for well over a decade. I generally follow small cap biotechnology, MLPs, and mining companies. I hope to provide my thoughts on both topics of interest to investors and particular companies.'

i've followed biotechs for 15 years, and i'm no expert, ...either.

Dew...that's really stretching it, even for you. in fact, it's an absurd reference for this board.

I am long pphm. i respect most of what's on this board, but there is definitely a stench of bias that diminishes all the good stuff here.

people here want pphm pumpers to see the facts and acknowledge them. most of us do both. not many people residing here do not!.

yeah, lots of folks have lost a bundle on Peregrine, lots are up big over time....just like with all biotechs.

apparently, the FDA thought the 11.7 survival might have been a valid number based on contracted, 3rd party results.

if i or my family members or friends were facing this scourge of a disease, i think i'd be taking a look at it when considering options.

you can gloat when it fails P3. till then, it may be wiser to tone it down.

how long till this is deleted?

[keep_trying]

Hello Dew,
The David Sobek email you posted earlier was a curious read, as the method of operation of Bavituximab against cancer is different (per Dr. Thorpe's papers) than what was described. If you would guide your associate to the IBox on the PPHM Board, CJ has done a nice job with posting references such that those who received misunderstandings about Bavituximab's FDA approval of a NSCLC Phase 3 trial design can learn for themselves. The University of Texas South West material on Dr. Thorp's research and the PPHM company web page are also resource areas. The three ASCO Poster presentations (around June 1) may also be helpful if there are parties on the BV board interested in the Bavi trial science. Mr Sobek may not know he is not correctly describing the role of Bavi in cancer trials, considering the mechanisms described through the inventor's research.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the convergence of trial reporting events was able to be highlighted by the FDA Phase 3 trial design approval of Bavi just before ASCO and the Russell rebalancing cutoff. In addition to investor interest in the Bavi trials, short interest is running just under 10% of outstanding PPHM shares and Russell rebalancing might add about 8% of shares additional buying pressure, due to be reconciled over a brief five or six week period. If it turns out that PPHM does have a partner soon to reveal their presence offering favorable terms to PPHM, I wonder how that demand for about 20 million shares to cover short interest and Russell rebalancing will impact the pps? The Phase 3 FDA approval, ASCO interest, and prospective partner announcement may all gets intertwined. We shall see.

Best wishes and IMO.
KT