The RB msg board is good! The comment in the video was confusing but I was never particularly concerned about it. But it is good that someone followed up with Dr McNally.
I can't view the video again right now, but somewhere around the 18:00 area Dr McNally expresses confidence about positive results from the phase 2A trial.
If the NIH is already prepared to fund the phase 2B trial (vaccine + booster) as well as a new "cure" trial (vaccine in combination with current cocktail drugs), I feel there is a good chance the data is already known by them.
Geovax is still a risky stock. There are no sure things, especially with all the failures with HIV vaccines that preceeded Geovax's. But I have added shares this week, including today.
Here is a post from RB Mb
Mcnally responds to someones question reguarding the 30% , 72% and 90% figures.
these all appear to be levels of survival and protection of disease, and NOT responces of cd4 or cd8 T cells. Therefore its anybody's quess what the efficacy numbers will be. But as mentioned before doubt they would showcase bad numbers in a oral presentation at the Annual Aids confrence...
16 Aug 2012, 05:52 PM CDT
Rating: Rate this post:
Msg. 1425 of 1425
(Reply to 1412 by gamblerjag)
Jump to msg. #
Gambler/LB: a friend of mine received the following reply regarding the 30% from Bob McNally if either of you care to comment: "You picked up on a change we have made in our data reporting. In the past, we would use primates for challenge studies where we would report the survival results after say 12 challenges. The results from the early studies would be 25% survival which for that type of challenge was very good. But what if we stopped after 6 challenges the results would have been 100% survival. The addition of the second generation product with the adjuvant gives 3x better results â€“ close to 70% survival using that method. Basically this is not a very good way to describe the data. So now we switched to giving survival based on a per challenge that takes into consideration the number of challenges. So the numbers below are 90% protection per exposure to the E660 type of challenge and 72% protection per exposure for the SIV 251 type challenge."
Did this explanation help?
I hope by the end of the year the pps is at least $15 and we are listed on the Nasdaq. With good results from the 1st generation Phase 1 and only 30M shares outstanding, we should get there. That would value the company at approx 450M.
I would love to be able to watch the GOVX ticker appear on the streaming banner on Squawx Box every morning. (CNBC)
$15 per share is the same as .30 per share before the reverse split. GOVX traded over .30 on the Thailand vaccine news. Considering (1) that wasn't our vaccine, and (2) it wasn't successful enough to be commercially viable, I would think $15 is possible.
CNBC covered the Thai vaccine story. So I know they'd be all over this. If the results are good enough, it could even be network news.
Add the kicker that the $75 million phase 2b trial will be fully funded by the gov't at no cost to Geovax. And that there is a "cure" trial planned to start in 2013 (cocktail drugs + our vaccine) - if "cure" hits the national news, the price could really fly.
I think we'll get a better sense of things in September. I don't like to get too optimistic too quickly - anyone who invests in biotechs has stories of "sure things" that fizzled for one reason or another. But if you're going to invest in biotechs and risk big losses, occasionally you should get a mega winner to offset some of the losers. Geovax could be it.
I need to learn to save everything because now I can't find what I'm looking for. In the primate (pre-clinical) testing, the vaccine had outstanding results:
"AIDS vaccines protected 22/23 [96%] non-human primates for over 3½ years post-infection with an AIDS causing virus --- 5 of 6 non-vaccinates controls died of AIDS."
That's the vaccine that started the trial, and will be reported on, in September.
But then they talked about the more stringent test, that the Merck vaccine failed. It was not used at the time of the Merck trial, which gave the false optimism over its trial potential. But the GeoVax vaccine showed good results - albeit much less than 96% - with that test. Right now I can't find that stat - it would be interesting to see if it's 50%.
Then there is the issue of how the data will be tabulated. There might not be a headline number like "62% effective". It may be more on dosing and response rates. And clearly it is preliminary data.
In the July presentation, Dr McNally made no mention of the September presentation at the AIDS vaccine conference. He said results would be out at the end of the year. I think that's a very good sign...and another good sign is that they have other trials in the works - the "CURE" trial - that will have gov't funding. I think we have a huge winner.
I agree with your analysis of the correlation. I need to go back and look at the primate results on the first version of the vaccine. I was hoping for more than 30% as the headline number in September.
I agree, it's about time!! Hooray! We have safety data on humans, and we have pre-clinical data from primates - but this will be our first efficacy data from human trials.
As far as I'm concerned, this is huge. We are only an HIV/AIDS vaccine company. There is nothing else. If the data is bad, we're toast.
On the other hand...this is a tiny micro cap company, and the stock is priced as if the odds for success aren't good. So on good results, I would expect some media coverage and a nice reaction in the stock price. And then never falling this low, ever again.
I bought more today. I can't believe they'd even consider presenting bad results at an AIDS conference. These results will give us credibility and get us noticed. McNally was talking buyout prices in his last presentation - in the billions. If he doesn't know, he has to at least suspect that the data is good And the next generation vaccine is even better.