Md1225, brother-in-law insights aside (LOL!), long shareholders need to keep the events surrounding March 2012 trial results (control arm that outperformed history of previous NSCLC trial treatment arms) and the September 24, 2012 events (clear evidence of dose switching at the double-blinded study CRO) consistently in their reference base as judgement calls are made about the PPHM board's performance. I don't agree that PPHM having "the Holy Grail" suffices as cause to open pathways to FDA approvals. There are too many of those currently commercial treatments earning billions annually prime to be bumped aside if a Pharma can latch on to the Bavi, anti-PS family to couple with their latest focus on down stream beta body immunotherapies. Another Pharma's opportunity cost needs to be acknowledged as being as much a factor in PPHM negotiations as their prospective benefits from acquiring PPHM tech rights. If the end game suggests that a current treatment earning billions will become a dead end towards worthless marketability with Bavi in approved status, that Pharma has a strong incentive to invest resources to impede PPHM. Of course, you have cited such things yourself in earlier posts.
A question to keep in mind is, would a PPHM communication arm a party with adversarial interests against PPHM long share holders and is PPHM in a SEC disclosure situation that requires the release of the information? If the answer to part 1 is yes and part 2 is no, the PPHM BOD is doing right by share holders to be closed about information sharing.
I figure PPHM needs through February 2014 to have sufficient time to play this out in order for there to be adequate information to make the critique against the PPHM BOD that many appear ready to make now. I also recognize that a go it alone PPHM option becomes much more a threat to Pharma if PPHM goes into February 2014 with a pps in the $3 to $5 range, better enabling the ATM funding mechanism able to bring in the $60 million guesstimated as needed for the Phase 3 trial. It has been clear that the closing pps has become an issue of importance to at least some, since records exhibit trades get tucked in around the closing second of trading. I have also observed that a party(s) is using dump sales of shares for trading during the day tallying around 150,000 shares but running as high as 300,000 shares to step down the pps trading range at opportune times. There is no good reason why a party would force a sale of shares in a manner that drops the pps if a share holder were seeking to get a return on their holdings of PPHM common stock.
Best wishes and IMO.
KT
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
