gladpick, interesting reference to AIDS. I believe that traditional cancer treatments end a patient up with a compromised immune system. Thus, there is less to stimulate with the GZMO approach. It seems to me that there should be a presumption that the treatment will work better in healthier patients. How much better remains to be seen (as does how much stock dilution has to be endured before they have material product sales).
My personal opinion is that IFFFF the science is any good (they will end up being successful), the stock will double in each of the next 4 years ($2.5 --> 5 --> 10 --> 20 --> 40), ending up in 4 years with a $1 billion market cap on perhaps 25 million shares then outstanding.
I agree with Biopearl's (#4923) as well as others who posted today and yesterday about the result of this trial being very significant and bullish. The fact is that someone's life may have been prolonged and there is to date total regression for that person. Many others in the trial have shown various positive (even though not total remission) responses which could signify that had higher and/or longer term dosages been administered additional remissions could have resulted. Usually this would occur in the next phase of the study. Also keep in mind that these patients were the sickest with several types of previous treatments and no improvements. Additionally sometimes previous treatments may render new EFFECTIVE treatments useless which may have been the case for some of these patients. This has been the case for certain AIDS patient. Also keep in mind that additional adjustments in the procedures for preparing the ex-vivo drug as well as its combination could be in the works to make it more effective.
I do not know if by referencing to the word "may" you are saying that one should not be bullish about this stock. If you are I totally disagree.
Today's announcement is couched in the same terms as the breast vaccine announcement in December. "Encouraging" "promising" and today included "positive." Without expert interpretation it is impossible to know how significant this is. Doc Kraut suggested blow your socks off stuff. This doesn't have that feeling. I think the real meaning is in the aspects of the announcement that I can not understand. For instance, what's more important - the single regression of the 71% immunologic response? If both are important why? Why is important to note that: "Additionally, eight of twelve patients assessed (67%) exhibited an immunologic response to the vaccine that had not occurred before treatment." I'm not even sure that statement makes sense on its face.
I understand that modest results in late stage cancers may imply much better results in early stage, but I think "may" is the operative word.
I've been following GZMO for several years. There was more excitement before - but those were the go-go years.
The Kugler work got everyone excited but I think we're a couple of years from Phase I results on that. I doubt the in vivo results coming up will be dramatic. Who knows: since the results of that study are in maybe that's the one Doc Kraut was talking about.
Regarding the leaks, apparently they did cause some buying. The reason the stock did not go very high was that many who heard it may have thought they were just hype. There was also a lot of unloading of biotech stocks which negated price upswing.
Read doc kraut's msg #4900 in which he talked about hearing in Germany that there may be a pending GZMO publication. I responded to him speculating that it may be the ex-vivo melanoma study which turns out to be the case. Anyhow, doc kraut we appriciate any updating you can from time to time.
Even if one person out of 21 went into total remission, as long as future expanded trials show the drug is safe, it could be approved by FDA and reimbursed by insurance companies eventually if not immediately. Right now there is no tratments that i know off that has caused total remission for 18 months in anyone. This is very bullish and those who can tollerate risk and have the cash could be very well rewarded LONG TERM by buying .
Another thing that struck me about the announcement is that the trials apparently were begun at least 1 1/2 years ago. It's surprising that leaks would not have had a more positive effect on the stock before now.