"Our company was incorporated under the laws of Nevada on February 8, 2008 as Netventory Solutions Inc."
ONCS was an internet company. That didn't work out so they morphed into a biotech company.
How did they do that?
"On March 14, 2011, we entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with Inovio to acquire certain assets from Inovio related to certain non-DNA vaccine technology and intellectual property relating to selective electrochemical tumor ablation (referred to as OMS)."
What did ONCS acquire from Inovio?
THIS IS IMPORTANT:
"Inovio granted to us a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain non-SECTA technology patents held by Inovio" ... "Because the license is non-exclusive, Inovio may use its technology to compete with us. In addition, there are no restrictions on Inovio’s ability to license their technology to others."
SO WHAT DID ONCS ACQUIRE? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
THIS IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT:
"Acquisition of the OMS tech. included an extensive clinical database from two Phase III clinical trials that were halted before enrollment was completed. In 2007, these two Phase III clinical trials, HNBE-01 and HNBE-02, which were designed to evaluate the use of the NeoPulse technology as a treatment for resectable recurrent and second primary squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck were halted as a result of a recommendation from the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). The DMC cited concerns regarding efficacy and safety, including mortality rates and enrollment futility. In the DMC’s opinion, the totality of data for these recurrent head and neck cancer studies suggested an unfavorable benefit-to-risk profile for the NeoPulse arm relative to the surgery arm ... enrollment for both studies were halted, however the treated patients were followed up to two years to further evaluate safety and efficacy, and the clinical trials were not reinitiated."
SO ONCS ACQUIRED FAILED TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS WRITTEN OFF IN 2007 BECAUSE OF LACK OF EFFICACY & HIGH MORTALITY.
I am a long on ONCS and own a fair amount of shares. Nevertheless I would very much appreciate it if another long would take the time to reply to the points made by penny.dung (hate that handle). so far this very long thread has been ad homonym rants againt him but no one actually spoke to the merit of the points he raises to refute them. Could someone please respond to these points on the merits so that I could sleep easy with my position in ONCS, espesially the issue of the non-exclusivity of the rights acquired from INO that, if true, basically means ONCS has a whole lot of nothing. I am sure that the people at ONCS are not that stupid so there must be a simple logical response and I would love to know what it is! Thanks
hank...i posted yesterday but it didn't go through for some reason. anyway, the only factual part of his statement is that they changed from netventory to oncosec medical in 2011. aside from that...the actual quote goes as follows:
Inovio also granted the Company a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain non-SECTA technology patents held by it in consideration for the following: (a) a fee for any sublicense of the Inovio technology; (b) a royalty on net sales of any business the Company develops with the Inovio technology; and (c) payment to Inovio of any amount Inovio pays to one licensor of the Inovio technology that is a direct result of the license. In addition, the Company agreed not to transfer this non-exclusive license apart from the assigned intellectual property.
meaning penny.dung changed the quote to fit his agenda. that quote speaks nothing of the electroporation and immunopulse technology. he's making #$%$ up...
Sad but true.
It was a cross licensing agreement.
ONCS acquired a NONEXCLUSIVE license from INO
and in return gave INO an exclusive license to for their technology.
INO acquired something that could have value, ONCS acquired something that has no value.
Hank, there are numerous cases AFTER these studies cited by penny.dung of electroporation being utilized to treat Merkel Cell Carcinoma, MCC. You can read a paper that was presented at the 7th Conference of Experimental and Translational Oncology, April 2013 entitled: "Electrochemotherapy as a new therapeutic strategy in advanced Merkel cell carcinoma of head and neck region." MCC is a very rare, aggressive cancer that frequently occurs in the head and neck area (up to 50% of the time). The paper is a case report of a woman with MCC treated with electroporation after an infusion of bleomycin. The patient was evaluated four weeks after the treatment: 50% reduction of the original tumour volume was observed, corresponding to a partial response according to RECIST criteria. The next ECT treatment resulted in 80% volume reduction compared to the original lesion. This is essentially the same combination (electroporation and bleomycin) used in the earlier studies.
actually I countered all his "points" last friday/saturday. As to INO/ONCS, well, ONCS was spun out of INO because INO did not want to pursue this course of treatment. So I'd not worry about that at all.
The Dhillon boys destroyed shareholders at Inovio: $50.00 to 50 cents, and spread their FAILED "technology" to other companies like a virus.
Now they will demolish the ONCS baggies.
Hello! What don't you understand about FAILED?
maybe you can tell us when it was $50 because on the 2y I see INO going $2-$10, with the R/S factored in. Also Avtar came in and turned the company around, so if you are talking pre Avtar, that's being rather ridiculoous