% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Message Board

  • john_m_us john_m_us Jul 3, 2013 9:58 PM Flag

    Having Facts to back up your Facts helps

    Settoplunge wrote a post about INO’s history as it relates to VGX that deserves an answer. I will be short due to space and time, so if you have any specific questions about anything feel free to ask by leaving a reply.
    VGX was founded in 2001 by Joseph Kim and David Weiner. The lead drug candidate was VGX 410 for treating HIV which did fail. Settoplunge seems to think this is a big deal and people are sweeping it under the rug. It was a big deal at the time, but all of us that were private investors in VGX knew the risks very well. More important is the fact that few biotech companies do trials while being private. Most that have a failed product weather public or private fail. What settoplunge missed in his very fast and lose research is VGX had a total of 3 trials it did in about 3 years and they all failed. Again the ability of J. Kim to manage these failures and still keep in business raising private money is a testament to his excellent management and his ability to do much with very little money. He was constantly in touch with his major investors, and never pulled any punches. Good or bad he told it all.
    In 2005 VGX decided to take over a publicly listed company in Korea called #$%$ Il Fabric, and turn it in to VGXI and make it an international division of the company. So VGXI was founded in 2005. Unfortunately settoplunge did not do in depth research or he would have noticed this. #$%$ Il Fabric was founded in 1976, not VGXI. The #$%$ Il still operates as a profitable division of VGXI today. There are a host of reasons this take over happened and the free standing company was founded but that is a very long and detailed topic too long for this posting. The lead drug for swine flu was licensed from Inovio back in 2009-2010. So obviously it has not been in development for over 30 years. It is the same flu vaccine that Inovio is having such great results with here. Again had settoplunge done some basic reading on the VGXI web site he would have seen it

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Bashers are not known for their smarts. Much like Republicans that think that rape doesn't usually result in pregnancy or that you can see Russia from Alaska.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • john m us AND plain ole pain, would INO's technology/drug be considered an "adjuvent"? i have taken a small position in ino with mnkd profits (last 3 mths). i have also played some coin through the Panel last fall on DVAX (ouch). dvax shot down because the fda wanted more(already 5000 or so injected) subjects injected with their adjuvent? what makes ino different in THAT respect? mind you, i'm a business man not a scientist,although i am able to catch on quick to the basics....hence "brain" lol. any thoughts? JMHO

      Sentiment: Hold

      • 3 Replies to goodbrain007
      • Sorry goodbrain missed your post. It looks like John has your answer.

      • thanks john m us for responding. i had last weekend off (for once) and did a lot of reading. My daughter in law (studying med.) , schooled me a bit too. i have been in pharms for 4 years now, and i have learned quite a bit (quick study i am). monday a bought a TON more of ino and it payed off today.sold the TON off today to buy back, more than i had, mnkd (cause i had sold it all) and kept a healthy position here in INO. little nut shell game. i watch 100's of pharm stocks, but the ones i see value and hope in is INO,MNKD, and KERX.JMHO

        Sentiment: Hold

      • No ino dna vaccines are delivered through Electroporation not an adjuvant, which is just an aditive added to the dna vaccine to increase uptake by the cells. The adjuvant method is older in human use, and much less effective than electroporation, which is often causes 3 to 5 times more uptake of the dna by the cells. The same is true of Vector base, which is often using a virus to deliver the dna to the cell for you, and sometimes causes side effects due to the virus used.
        When you see a trial like Dvax with 5000 people need more data, it is often a sign of the trial being constructed improperly. Also the results can so close, that the FDA is having a hard time seeing the benefit of the drug, therefore they ask for more data. Sometimes the Control group itself is just too small. If so no matter how many injected people you have, you have to increase the control group and inject more people. Most of this is due to poor trial construction and is a very bad sign.
        You can also have a result that is so good, the fda or testing agency requires a larger control group. This is because the data is just too good to accept. VGX animal health had such a rusult before it was owend by INO. So the control group was required by the USDA to make sure the good results were not some sort of result that was just happening reguardless of the drug being in the system. Regulators are always very suspiscious of data that looks too good to be true. INO may have this hurdle in the near future. This is much better than a poorly constructed trial, but still requires more time and money invested by the company.
        I too am a business person, not a scientist. My history with the current INO goes back to when they were a private company (called VGX) with 2 people. So I have a lot of experience with their technology, but I am not in any way a scientist... I hope this helps. You may want to post questions like that on Ihub you will get better and faster responses...

    • John I appreciate all the insight to the past present and possible future you have provided on INO. What is interesting with the failure of VGX 410 Dr. Kim and his reasoning took a hard retrospective look at the failed data. Drawing a conclusion it looks like he saw he was not getting the uptake of DNA plasmid as he would have hoped to have seen. Hence, the investigation into electroporation and finding INO the leader in electroporation and brining these 2 powerful technologies together. Now we are seeing the beginning fruits from the marriage of these 2 technologies developing best in class responses not seen to date in these studies.
      Reading between the lines on the poster topic they are preparing for at HIV meeting in Barcelona it’s interesting to say the least. The topic PENNVAX-B DNA Vaccine via Electroporation Drives Potent Cellular Immune Responses and Synthesis of Granzyme B, Perforin: Data from 3 Clinical Trials. Which granzyme B and perforin are the precursors that are seen in regards to apoptosis of cells. (Warning my minds interpretation) Hence I will take it a step further and say it’s not only a vaccine but also shows signs of apoptosis of HIV cells.
      Also, what I find interesting other companies looking at plasmid DNA vaccines are realizing you need a adjuvant to help your plasmid get a strong foothold into the cells for better T-cell responses. I believe Dr. Kim has found best way of closing this major hurdle by utilization of electroporation. My research and knowledge into INO makes the most scientific sense in addressing this hurdle. By use of SynCon® vaccine and their electroporation delivery technologies truly makes it the powerhouse of its secret sauce. Of course you can’t forget management but they are the ones that brought this all together. So the only 1 last part of the leg missing is marketing which will be needed because of this outside box thinking technology. Hopefully selling a cure is easy ;)

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 1 Reply to plain_ole_pain
      • Partly true. VGX 410 was a small molecule drug and not DNA based so uptake of dna was not an issue. The failure of the small molecule drugs the we felt were easy approvals and cheap to test was always going to be step one, with J. Kim telling me in 2003 that if any small molecule failures happened he would turn the company into a dna vaccine base company. He was considering adding that as a division even if we had succeeded in the small molecule drugs.

    • Is this post an exultation of FAILURE? VGX didn't have one failure, they had four? That is your counterpoint to settoplunge? Oh my! Are you trying to refute his post or make his case stronger?

      Let me see if I understand, let's bury INO's sordid history and just start in 2005. Forget about all the prior mutations, transformations and name changes. And similarly with VGXI, let's bury its dubious record and just start with 2005 too.

      VGX took over VGXI in 2005?
      The merger with Inovio and VGX closed in June 2009. They had agreed to the merger in July 2008 and amended the agreement in December 2008 with an agreed merger date of Q1 2009.
      "The lead drug for swine flu was licensed from Inovio back in 2009-2010"
      So Inovio licensed the drug to VGXI, or in effect to itself, since the two companies already merged?
      Inovio agreed to pay itself royalties?

      Amazing!!! If you read settoplunge's follow up in his post, you will see that he points out how ludicrous that is.


      • 1 Reply to hugochazev
      • I feel fine myself. Again you bashers are confusing VGXI and VGX. By the way, J. Kim is 43 so if you want to hold him accountable for stuff that happened at Inovio when he was 13 even you can see how foolish you look. You points have already been addressed and answered in the post you are commenting on, reading the post may help you...
        As I stated VGXI was created in 2005 when VGX bought #$%$ Il Fabric and turned it into VGXI. Obviously #$%$ Il which was a fabric company was not working on flu vaccines. I know this is difficult to follow for you... I was really expecting some good questions I am very disappointed in your reply.
        By the way if you feel that the facts of the VGX history support your case that is fine with me.The facts are the facts. I do not make stuff up like you. I think it is important for the public to know the full story which is why I spent so much time in my interview with J. Kim going over the failures. Since 99% of NDA drugs fail, I am not in any way ashamed of the failures. I would have rather had successes though.
        How many failures do you think Merck and Pfizer have between them? You do not know. Few do. I do not know. All that matters in this business is your successes. The Syncon system cuts development time and costs dramatically. At the same time the nature of DNA vaccines allows for the fist major hurdle of drug development to be almost guaranteed. The fact that the compound will be safe in the body and not cause any ill effects. This is why Inovio has such a great chance of success. The HIV, Hep C, and Flu syncon vaccines have had about as good of a success as possible at this stage. The only thing that can happen is more hard data and continuing trials. Neither myself or anyone else knows how these will turn out. This is the major risk.
        The fact the J. Kim has presided over 3 failures and managed to stay in business, in fact thrive as a company is nothing but good for investors. The failures were not due to bad science.

7.21-0.19(-2.57%)Jul 30 4:00 PMEDT