Recent

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

Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Message Board

dr.vinmantoo 38 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 4, 2016 5:50 PM Member since: May 18, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jul 1, 2016 10:32 PM Flag

    The amount of pumping this Biopharm person does is truly astonishing.

  • Reply to

    Ram on PGNX Part Two

    by ramsr14u2 Jun 30, 2016 3:23 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jul 1, 2016 2:19 PM Flag

    {{I have provided you innumerable facts backing my comments and thesis. You on the other hand offer only buffoonish statements disregarding available facts.}}

    Bwaa, Hhhaa, do you actually believe the garbage you post, or is it an act?

    {{ The bottom line is the market is casting a long pall over this stock. In fact, the price action indicates something dire is about to happen}}

    Right, no outside event or stock market movement has affected PGNX.

    {{Ours is to guess what the market is foretelling. It could well be another PDUFA postponement. It could be a CRL for oral Relistor as a result of some heretofore unknown Valeant misstep.}}

    Nobody knows what the FDA will say, but chances are very good for Oral Relistor approval.

    {{Sales of Relistor may fall another 30% on top of the latest quarter over quarter precipitous 30% fall.}}

    Only a fool focuses on a single quarter without looking at year over year quarter comparisons. Total Relistor sales for 2015 were $43 million, $25 million being recorded in Q4. Valeant had issues with inventory stocking, which have now been corrected. That is why sale recorded were very uneven last year. The Q1 2016 sales of $16 million, which projects to $64 million without any sales growth, a major increase over 2015. The 30% decline which you harp on is an accounting issue not a sales issue.

    {{Valeant might be forced to walk away from PGNX altogether. It could be any or several of these things that Mr. Market is whispering into our ears. }}

    Yes and so what? Relistor is already approved. If Valeant tries to walk away, then they will have to pay PGNX and return Relistor.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jul 1, 2016 12:15 PM Flag

    Changing the name of a drug is a common tactic of companies when they try and hide past failure or issues with a drug in development. It makes it harder to look back and track the problematic issues.

  • Reply to

    FDA approval

    by chilwinston Jun 30, 2016 6:44 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jul 1, 2016 12:13 PM Flag

    {{it tells how the market thinks the future will be.........}}

    Options are bets by people who are guessing and or hedging short or long positions they currently have.

  • Reply to

    Ram on PGNX Part Two

    by ramsr14u2 Jun 30, 2016 3:23 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jul 1, 2016 12:11 PM Flag

    {{Sales of Relistor are declining rapidly.}}

    Blatant lie. The opposite is true.

    {{Movantik eating into market share and the disarray among the Valeant sales force are the drivers of this steep decline.}}

    Batant lie.

    {{You have to believe that Valeant is offering steep discounts as well. This will further erode revenue from Relistor sales.}}

    Oh give me a break. Funny how you fail to take into account that approval of the Oral Relistor fomulation will be a major plus for PGNX.

  • Reply to

    FDA approval

    by chilwinston Jun 30, 2016 6:44 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 30, 2016 9:00 PM Flag

    {{but the read out of the options information shows above probabilities............with nearly 44,98% probability the market sees PGNX under 3 USD}}

    This kind of "analysis makes me laugh. So according to you, people buying options (which are bets) are supposed to be a crystal ball telling us the future. What is funny is that even if you buy that nonsense the percentage you cite is less than a 50% chance.

  • Reply to

    FDA approval

    by chilwinston Jun 30, 2016 6:44 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 30, 2016 5:03 PM Flag

    {{Market sees PGNX stock between 1-3 USD........}}

    Silly me, I thought the market sees PGNX at $4.22, which is today's closing price.

  • Reply to

    Ram on PGNX Part Two

    by ramsr14u2 Jun 30, 2016 3:23 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 30, 2016 3:45 PM Flag

    Wow, you are relentless in you negative projections. Subcutaneous Relistor is already selling $64 million/ year assuming no increases from Q1. Oral Relistor should sell several times that.

  • Reply to

    Biden is P'd

    by commonfodder Jun 30, 2016 8:18 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 30, 2016 1:46 PM Flag

    The results from clinical trials should be reported in a timely manner. If companies want to mine the data for subgroups after the facts, then can keep that to themselves as proprietary information. The exception being for subgroups specified in advance, which should also be mandated reporting.

  • Reply to

    Ram's PGNX Ramblings

    by ramsr14u2 Jun 29, 2016 1:06 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 30, 2016 1:42 PM Flag

    {{I predict latest qtr. sales of Relistor will be horrible. }}

    I predict you will be wrong.

  • Reply to

    Ram's PGNX Ramblings

    by ramsr14u2 Jun 29, 2016 1:06 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 30, 2016 1:59 AM Flag

    {{ Do your own DD and place faith in nothing I write. }}

    That is exactly what I and most others feel. Good-bye.

  • Reply to

    Note to self

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 28, 2016 10:37 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 28, 2016 12:52 PM Flag

    {{Not only don't they care they're making jokes.}}

    That is called gallows humor.

  • Reply to

    Stupid

    by mcliotr8634567 Jun 27, 2016 2:51 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 27, 2016 6:31 PM Flag

    {{I was long for a long term.....no i sold ......because.....management ist bad........}}

    PGNX management hasn't been very good, but they have nothing to do with Oral Relistor approval. That is all on Valeant.

  • Reply to

    Stupid

    by mcliotr8634567 Jun 27, 2016 2:51 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 27, 2016 6:28 PM Flag

    {{no......in 3 weeks oral relistor will fail.........and in 5 weeks......they will pump up their burning rate in One World trade Center ......in one year from now .....they are bankrupt...............my advice sell and save your money !!!!!!!}}

    Are you trying hard to be stupid, or it is a natural talent?

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 26, 2016 2:57 PM Flag

    Then this poster named hopefilled asks me {{Are you trying to convince people here to sell? Good luck with that!}}

    I responded with: I come here for both amusement and out of a sense of altruism. I don't care whether anyone buys or sells. I do care about people repeatedly posting things that have no basis in reality and counter them. I take the time to post facts, or scientifically based opinions that give people a reasonable data base from which to make their own decisions. . I have been thanked in the past for providing information that helped them make better investment decisions. I have also been helped by other people doing the same. The Biotech Values board is the best public forum to obtain such information, and just a few of the best posters there, are jq1234, ifwal, dewophile, poorgradstudent and dewdiligence.

    Of course hopefilled's comment stays up but mine get deleted as being off topic.

  • Cloaked protector keeps pumping PPHM with the absurd idea that you need to make a cocktail containing a mixture of 10-12 different antibodies to immune suppressing receptors or ligands expressed on tumor cells or immune cells to match the broad anti-suppressing power of Bavi. I countered that absurd notion very easily by pitn out that single agent ant-receptor or anti-ligand therapies have already proven effective enough for FDA provken but Bavi has failed every time.

    CP came back with the following. {{vimantoo, you are missing your own point here. We were not talking about the PD-1/PD-L1. We were talking about 10+ PS receptor drugs to COMBINE with PD-1/PD-L1 vesus PS target (Bavituximab) one drug to combine with PD-1/PD-L1. So your reply is besides the point because I never said the PD-1/PD-L1 doesn't work. BMY/Merck and others proved otherwise.}}

    You are missing the point as usual. You keep claiming that the anti+PS antibody approach, specifically Bavi, is equivalent to using a combination of 10-12 anti-receptor/ligand antibodies. There is no basis in reality for that statement as Bavi has failed repeatedly as a single agent or with chemo whereas single agent anti-receptors or anti-ligand approaches have worked well enough to merit FDA approval. The limited clinical trial data using combinations of two of such anti-receptor or anti-ligand approaches have showed synergistic improvements, again showing your comments are off-base.

    Of course, my comment gets deleted as being off topic but CP's remains posted.

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 25, 2016 1:25 AM Flag

    Part 2:

    CP wrote: {{Furthermore only vascular endothelial cells count (not all others including lymphomatic endothelial cells) because blood only gets in contact with the vascular type and all drugs and immune cells we are talking about here are in the blood environment.}}

    What are you talking about? Are you actually saying antibodies are only present in the blood? Wow!

    CP wrote: {{The life span of endothelian cells (time from being created till the apoptotic cycle starts) is months to years.}}

    What does that or the lifespan of other cells have to do with anything. Wow! Wow! The rest of your post isn't worth commenting on. Thanks for the very revealing post. It says a lot but doesn't say anything.

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 25, 2016 1:23 AM Flag

    As usual, when you counter the shameless pumper CP, your post on IHbu gets deleted. Here is the exchange.

    CP wrote {{vinmantoo, it doesn't matter that a singled out drugs that addresses one specific PS receptor shows some (limited) clinical improvement. You need to bind them ALL (10+ receptor types) together and the only way to do that in a synchronised way is capping Phosphotidylserine (PS) and not mixing 10+ drugs to block Tim1, Tim3, Tim4, Axl, Mer, Tyro-3, CD300a, RAGE, BAI-1, Stabilin etc}}

    I responded: Right, the clinical improvement from use of anti-PD-L1, or anti-CTL4 or anti-PD1 antibodies was so limited that the FDA approved multiple treatments as single agent in various cancers. In contrast, the magic all powerful, all purpose Bavi failed in single agent in in combo in trial after trial. Yes you have a real strong point there. I don't know where you are getting that idea from, but it has been clearly been proven wrong based on human clinical trials and FDA approval. Results have been even more promising when combining two such targets, either in the same pathway, (anti-PD-L1 + anti-PD1) or in different pathways (anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTL4). You need to stop with the nonsense that you need to bock all 10 or 12 receptors to get an effect.

    CP wrote {{The PS from APPOPTIC cells is NEGLIGIBLE compared to the PS exposed due to other therapy damage (CHEMO, RADIO, etc).}}

    I like when you just invent something and then write in upper case letters to try and give it legitimacy. That is flat out wrong. The is an estimated 25 million PS molecules per cells.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22858544

PGNX
6.01-0.11(-1.80%)Sep 23 4:00 PMEDT