Even though I am long this stock and its long term goals still scare me. Why?
Well even though this stock's mutated virus vaccine methodology to kill various cell infected cells seems promising, it seems as though all of their vaccines for EVERY DISEASE they are trying to cure relies on this same system. So basically it seems like a total hit or a total miss.
Am I missing something here when I say this above? if so, what?
I don't know why you got so many down votes as the electroporation technology is what inovio is pushing. If it succeeds, then you have your hands on a stock well above $100. If not, this company goes bankrupt, funding is ceased, and all the money invested is basically burned away. That's the way high risk-reward scenarios go though. It's very telling when I see other posters bash you for asking a simple and necessary question that all of us invested should ask ourselves. I've come to the consensus that most people on this board are unable to discus matters from another point of view. The ignorance here is in abundance
This is only half of what Inovio is about though. Electroporation is the delivery mechanism... Synthetic DNA (their SYNCON) system is where the vaccine aspect of the company comes in. Electroporation is used in a high number of other ranging methods. Its the combination of these two things that is providing Inovio with its current success.
What worries me is that everything is still in phase 1. I know they have had all good preclinical work and phase 1 results. But where are the phase 2 results? Now before you blast me understand that the HIV phase 1 study finished back in 2011 and Inovio has yet to start a phase 2 trial. Why haven't they started any phase 2 trial yet for the HIV study?
What is scaring you? The continual "Best in class" active T-cell responses and Immune responses against infectious diseases like HPV and HIV (90% of patients experienced positive immune response). Sounds like you just haven;t done any DD.
I wouldn't worry about it. I would be more worried if the phase 1 trials weren't successful. As long as they're successful, phase 2 results will ensue. It's just a matter of time. Like every biotech we just need to wait it out. Management has earned the benefit of the doubt and then some in my book.
Not that this is the reason why, but also keep in mind that INO's business model is to focus on R&D and let partners run their clinical trials for them. The vast majority of their pipeline is funded by others. This is a quote from their website:
"Our strategy is to focus on our core expertise, conducting R&D and clinical development to achieve proof of principle of SynCon® vaccine products, and leave late-stage clinical development and commercialization to partners. We currently have advancing discussions with funding agencies and pharma/vaccine companies with the intent of securing funding and sponsorship for R&D and early clinical studies as well as more comprehensive development and partnering relationships."
This is why I'm really interested to see the terms of any licensing agreement struck. It may be huge.
If you do not trust Innovio, and are unwilling to learn the science you might be better off investing elsewhere. I am a second year Biology major and my interest in the immune system coincided with investing in equities. I thought this thing would fly under the radar of day traders until the FDA began giving approvals. I bought in May, and would have been happy with 1.20 by Q1 2014. If you want my advice hold some shares and forget about them, the science is sound, we have best in class leaders, and clinical response. Go long!
What about IMUC--also appears to be a good bet (I own some INO--was thinking about buying more but wondering if it won't be bought out by Merck before it has a chance to advance its pipeline?)
If a hole in the ground is hole and your arcc has a hole it's obvious you have no way of knowing how one would mutate the hole methodology. It's obvious as the hole in your head you have no (f(arking clue what you know and anyone trying to explain this company to you will develop a mutated hole in their head. Does that explain the mutated hole theory for you? My advice if you bought this stock sell it and buy immunology book. Then come back and you will see how unbrilliant your question is holed. Very clear?
So, now that I am back up off the floor after LMAO, you need to know you are on the wrong message board. This company does not use any virus in any vaccine it produces. It uses, hold on for this, electroporation to deliver fragments of synthetic DNA into our cells. Those cells then produce proteins unique to that DNA strand and the disease being targeted so our immune systems can mount an attack. I have no idea what company you are looking for.
I'm sorry if I came off to strong. But you say you are long yet you don't even understand the essence of what make Inovio's vaccines unique and different from all other companies that attempted to create a DNA vaccine. If you did, you wouldn't have used the words mutated virus in describing what they do. They specifically have overcome that obstacle in creating DNA vaccines.
mutated virus vaccine? You mean synthetic DNA/Electroporation (No parts of a virus are in there vaccine). INO has reported best in class active T-Cell responses multiple times. Quote from Dr. Kim "If you do something once, it could be luck; if you consistently prove best in class T cell responses and immune responses, now you have something that's validated - something that is coveted by not only Inovio and our collaborators, but our potential corporate PARTNERS"
Hello basher. Ending your posts with a question doesn't make you not a basher. You've been bashing for days now. To answer your questions for everybody but you, since I'm sure you already know the answer.
INO does not use "mutated virus vaccine methodology." They use consensus synthetic DNA which has the benefits of being incredibly safe, fast, cheap and easy to manufacture, and incredibly cheap to ship and store. To your point, yes, INO uses the same methodology, that is syncon DNA + electroporation, to tackle many different diseases. That is exactly the reason why INO is such an attractive investment because their method may work for everything out there. One method that primes the immune system to have it fight whatever disease we can program it to.
With regard to "total hit or miss," it will end up being something in between. Maybe every vaccine won't work, but it is incredibly unlikely that every one will fail also. The street will see it as a total hit or miss, but the science begs otherwise.
Hippity - if INO uses the same methodology to treat all types of diseases isn't there something a little fishy about that? And yes either it will work for ALL diseases or NONE of them. To me that means the stock either goes to $1000 a share or $0 a share. Seems like a gamble to me.....and you tell me what is more likely the outcome?
I'd say we shouldn't just label everyone who comes through the door a basher for asking a legitimate question. (Which I find this to be)
Basically your question has been answered by Hipity. Yes Inovio developed a DNA platform which they call Syncon. They saw great results with this platform with their original HPV vaccine so they decided to branch outwards from there. Why change your methodology when you experience success? It would make no sense to try to develop a different platform if your original is providing such results as Syncon has.