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

ONYX Pharmaceuticals, AŞ Message Board

dr.vinmantoo 136 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 20, 2016 1:44 PM Member since: May 18, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Semi-serious question for the Bashers

    by jeff4iam4 May 27, 2016 12:21 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 27, 2016 1:08 PM Flag

    Very serious and important question for the longs. Why do you think/believe Bavi is the best and most important immune modulating agent in the world when it has failed time after time in human trials? What are the possible negatives aspects of its MOA, especially compared to the strategy of direct modulation of immune cell activity like interfering with the PD-1/PD-L1 receptor/ligand interaction?

  • Reply to

    Vinny boy

    by coolhandlucy007_007 Jun 15, 2016 6:46 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 10:43 AM Flag

    Lucy provides the response of the typical ignorant long, fingers stuck tightly in her ears, shouting nyah, nyah nyah I can't hear you. That is what the FUD matrna is all about, ntohg is ever wrong or bad so keep smiling while you are financially stripped naked by an incompetent board and beaten senseless. What eve happened to the "In Garnick we trust" mantra that was supposed to silence all doubters and reassure PPHM longs as Bavi faiIure after failure mounted?

    I have provided systematic and scientifically based reasoning to excoriate the moronic IHUB longs and their delusional pie in the sky dreams of a PPHM empire, and all their absurd fantasies about why failed trials aren't really failed trials. It will sting you that much more as PPHM racks up failure after failure in the coming years, knowing you could have saved money or made money on something else instead of losing even more money PPHM. I won't laugh because I hate seeing people lose money. However, I will shake my head in astonishment about that people who know little or nothing about science are so sure their investment will be a dramatic success that it will change the field of oncology. Truly amazing.

  • Reply to

    Roche joins the party

    by coolhandlucy007_007 May 18, 2016 4:25 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 18, 2016 10:54 PM Flag

    Why would BP need Bavi, a drug that has failed in every clinical trial to date?

  • Reply to

    What doesn't CloakedP umderstand?

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 14, 2016 6:44 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 16, 2016 12:21 PM Flag

    {{Oh please! He's mocking them. I can picture him giggling with every paragraph that gets a response. }}

    That would make more sense than someone being so clueless as to actually believe PPHM will submit a BLA based on Sunrise and get FDA approval.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 10, 2016 3:08 PM Flag

    Oh Jeff, you really are funny.

    {{This board is really just a bash fest, so I don't bother reading it as has gotten stale and boring with just a bunch of bashers having a jerk fest orgy. Since I am not into that nor agree with most of the #$%$ being spewed, I have lost a lot of my interest in this board.}}

    The truth is hard for some people to swallow so it is easier for people like you to just attack those telling you the truth than it is to accept reality.

    {{Sometime you just have to abandon the idiots and let them tend to themselves.}}

    That is what seems to have happened on Ihub as many of the usual pumpers have left. As far as idiots, are you referring to the morons who keep stating or even suggesting that PPHM will file a BLA and get Bavi approved based on a failed phase III? Or are you referring to those who say that the Sunrise data will be added to the corrupted compromised phase II trial with so many censored patients in the Bavi arm that they tried to hide it using low resolution images, and somehow get FDA approval? Or are you referring to the idiots who claim the FDA will allow approval of Bavi by letting PPHM discard the control arm to make Sunrise it a single arm trial, somehow forgetting that the trial was stopped at the first futility look?

    {{But, I do read every iHub board post though, at least there is balance there and thoughtful discussion....and a hell of a lot less personal attacks by lowbrow idiots. By the way, this is a great price to get back in...things can turn on a dime in this industry....and when it does, there usually is little warning.}}

    Wow, you actually posted that $0.33 is a good price to buy PPHM. Now that is funny, although I did notice you are down to "buy" instead of "strong buy" on your sentiment, so maybe there is hope for you after all.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 4, 2016 1:22 AM Flag

    The funniest thing, or more accurately, the saddest thing is when you see PPHM longs listing their long-term sentiment as strong buy. You have to wonder just how bad the news for PPHM has to get before they become less confident in PPHM's prospects.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 13, 2016 1:40 PM Flag

    {{Working tirelessly to drive home the "outperforming control arm" story with nothing but King's horrible past track record to work with. Working tirelessly to legitimize the Sunrise trial when the lack of any evidence of its existence seems to say it was only a game just to raise cash. No data, no patient or physician chatter, no DMC identity, no published anything. And the guy presumably running the show and getting paid big bucks by shareholders, doing a disappearing act after it's discovered he was working for a competing biotech chasing a lung cancer cure with trials running.}}

    Don't forget the twin conspiracy theories that are red meat on the IHub board. Big Pharma not only conspired to sabotage Bavi trials, they conspired to kill off researchers working on the PS pathway. They did this in a vast conspiracy whose plotters are masters at the art of silence, much better than the CIA. It is sheer criminal genius. The big question is; Why Big Pharma would engage in such a broad based conspiracy they when they could have bought PPHM for a rounding error in their budget?

  • Reply to

    Trial Data

    by rabies_00 Apr 20, 2016 3:35 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 23, 2016 1:46 PM Flag


    {{Vinny since you can post on the Hump could you ask the favored few over there who actually get replies from IR to ask them where the he11 Garnick is and why has he not updated on Sunrise himself? Is he still associated with PPHM in the same manner as before and during the trial or has something changed since?}}

    it looks like Carboat and corporalagarn (love than screen alias) are already doing that repeatedly. They are both quite amusing. It will be funny to watch the pumper longs who have been spewing the "In Garnick we trust" mantra quickly trash him once PPHM acknowledges he is gone. Based on PPHM's modus operandi, I expect that his name will be quietly removed for the web site without any PR.

  • Cloaked protector was once again spouting nonsense that PPHM could submit a BLA for Bavi based on the failed Sunrise trial. CorporalAgarn and Carboat are properly taking him to task.

    CorporalAgarn smacked CP with the following {{It is wrong. They are not going to file a BLA based on this failed trial. It really is as simple as that. You are waiting for them to specifically state this when there really is no need to do so. It is known.}}

    I joined into the fun with to try and explain how CP might have gotten to such a wrong conclusion.

    {{This is really a 2-part issue. First, PPHM is NOT going to file a BLA based on Sunrise or the small corrupted and now thoroughly discredited phase II Bavi+ DOC. Second, even if PPHM was dumb enough or desperate enough to file a BLA, the FDA would summarily reject it because it won't be based on any data from a completed trial, let alone successful trial. The only thing I can think of is that CP is using a mathematical principal to support his claim. A negative times a negative makes a positive. That is why he thinks PPHM will get FDA approval for Bavi.}}

    Apparently this is too much for the IHUB longs to bear, some humor to explain someone posting delusional fantasies about PPHM getting Bavi approved based on the failed Sunshine trial so my post was deleted. I contested the deletion.

  • Reply to

    Frau Bleeker

    by antwan_rockamoora May 8, 2016 8:44 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 9, 2016 1:59 AM Flag

    Great Young Frankenstein reference.

  • Reply to

    Trial Data

    by rabies_00 Apr 20, 2016 3:35 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 23, 2016 1:40 PM Flag

    Jeff, you also wrote {{What I am banking on is that PPHM eventually makes a partnering deal to push forward with I/O combo trials that I believe will be successful. I am hopeful that a partnership deal will be finalized prior to the ASM or soon thereafter. Without that, it would appear that we current shareholders will likely have to suffer through another R/S and thus be further diluted to the point that the most we can hope for will be a meager profit and that will not be seen for at least several more years. And yes, I will likely wait for it and not sell any of my shares}}

    Do whatever you like with your shares and base it on whatever hopes you have for Bavi in immune modulator trials. I will repeat what I wrote before. As far as combinations with immune modulators, that is field and growing more and more crowded each day. Companies with big money are using combinations of drugs they own, and where each drug on its own has shown efficacy on its own so they are looking for synergism. There is ZERO clinical data for Bavi having good efficacy as a single agent and ZERO clinical data for Bavi in an combination with an immune modulator. Yet for some reason you are confident it will shine. No FUD for you like there is none for other pumpers. Good luck to you. You will need it!

    You actually think PPHM will be able to get a partnership deal soon. Let's be clear about what a normal investor considers a partnership. It is not where PPHM pays someone else to include Bavi in any pre-clinicial studies or clinical trials. It is where another company agrees to pay PPHM significant up front money, say over at least $20 million, provides for significant milestones far in excess of upfront money, and takes over much if not all the developmental costs and grants PPHM a percentage of future sales. I predict that PPHM won't be involved in such a deal this year. What say you?

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 4, 2016 1:19 PM Flag

    Ha, ha, you are touting an upgrade to a $1 price target. Now that is funny.

  • Reply to


    by jay_scott27 Jun 17, 2016 9:18 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 17, 2016 12:40 PM Flag

    {{Why don't you just quit now and leave the bashing to the professionals like LC, Dr. V, and a few others }}

    Jeff, providing scientifically based factual information isn't bashing. It is providing a service to help uninformed people who might be misled by PPHM shills, the worst of which is Cloaked Protector. It is no wonder he is cloaked because if his true identity were revealed he would be either put under psychiatric observation and then committed to an institution, or sued by the SEC.

  • {{The embarassment of inviable presidential candidates speaks for itself}}

    Yes it does, but that is besides the point. You vote for a person based on the options available. Donald Trump is a psychopath, and anyone who thinks he should be president is beyond stupid. He is a loud-mouth bully who can't stand any criticisms, so has harassed anyone who does so. He is only motivation is to collect more money for himself and it doesn't matter who he hurts to get there. He is woefully ignorant of diplomacy and world affairs, says anything at anytime without thinking, and changes his statements almost daily.

    {{and if you believe that there is a capable leader amongst this years' are every bit as incapable in your skills as a citizen as those in the running for our top office.}}

    One again you attempt to deflect and avoid answering a simple question. I said nothing of the sort. When you are given bad choices you hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils. I do know that Donald Drumpf is a disaster and woe to the country and the word if that egomaniac is ever given the levels of power.

    {{Your mother must be very proud to call you her son...}}

    Yes she was, and she had plenty of reasons for being proud, and still does. Thanks for recognizing that.

    {{I cast my vote for beans & M-16s...}}

    Adults face their problems and attempt to solve them intelligently. You are one of those idiot rednecks running to hold your little gun as if it is a solution. How sad and childish.

  • Reply to

    What doesn't CloakedP umderstand?

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 14, 2016 6:44 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 11:22 PM Flag

    learningcurve, that is the wrong question. You should have asked, what DOES he understand? The answer is obviously, NOT MUCH.

  • I posted this in response to the nonsense being peddled by Biopharm and it was removed for supposedly being off-topic. I requested a review. Here is my post.

    Biopharm wrote {{Now we know why Peregrine was sabotaged by CSM in Fargo, ND -- specifically Jeanette Bleecker that admitted to switching the placebo and 1mg Bavi trial arm drugs and PS Targeting works so well and Peregrine believes in it 100% that they investigated and found the SABOTAGE.}}

    I responded: The data was from a trivial, highly censored little phase II for Bavi or any other drug is meaningless when a follow up large phase III trial, Sunrise in the case of Bavi, gets stopped at the first futility analysis. PPHM's stopping of all Bavi + Chemo trials makes this abundantly clear to all but the most dense.

    Biopharm wrote {{Next came Sunrise Phase III, except this time the control arm Docetaxel seemed to be higher than any time in HISTORY. Anyone that investigates why will find out why and easily see there is a loophole that allows this to happen if control arm patients are lured out of a trial and into another trial which allowed JUST ENOUGH extra time to skew the real results but remember, Peregrine publicly stated Bavituximab in Sunrise "PERFORMED AS EXPECTED" }}

    I respondend: Oh my god, still grasping at the nebulous nonsense provided by PPHM in a press release. You have NO idea what performed as expected means for the Bavi arm nor what the control arm's performance was. Please stop it.

    Biopharm wrote {{I expected and the FDA expected that Peregrine meant by their Sunrise protocol was designed to beat SOC and yes..... this can be modified to act as a single arm trial and yes, FDA pending approval based on all Bavi data can occur anytime.}}

    I responded: No Sunrise can't be modified into a single arm and used for FDA approval. The FDA will never allow Bavi approval based on the stopped Sunrise trial. Why do you keep posting such nonsense?

  • Reply to

    Semi-serious question for the Bashers

    by jeff4iam4 May 27, 2016 12:21 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 29, 2016 1:58 PM Flag

    The touting of FUD as somehow a bad trait is the mark of someone unable to face reality. It is analogous to someone sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting repeatedly, nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you.

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 24, 2016 1:32 PM Flag

    Jeff, here is your problem in a nutshell.

    {{Not that I am admitting that the NSCLC trials did not show Bavi works....they did...but the trial itself was not successful enough due to several circumstances to get FDA approval on their own. }}

    The Sunrise NSCLC trial failed, and failed miserably, which means Bavi failed in combination with docetaxel.

    {{I am still on the side of the fence that Bavi works and will likely work well in I/O and the collaborations going on tell me a lot of other smart people see a lot of promise with Bavi as well.}}

    PPHM has ZERO collaborations in the real sense of the word. I have never said Bavi cannot work or is doomed to failure. I have said it is a real longshot and given reasons based on its MOA and clinical trial data. I have buttressed this opinion by citing the facts that Bavi has failed as a single agent or in combination with chemo in multiple human trials and in multiple cancers. In contrast, I cited that agents which modulate single receptors (anti-PD1, anti-CTLA4) or single ligands (ant-PD-L1) have shown sufficient benefits in clinical trials as to be approved in multiple cancers. CP and other on the IHub board dismiss this difference as they tout Bavi. It is astonishing to read. I then pointed out that trial combining two such single agents in trials (two in the same pathway or two from different pathways) already appear to be synergistically improving results. CP dismissed this and stated flat out that you need to block 10 or 12 receptors simultaneously in trials and that Bavi is the magic drug that can do it. It is astonishing to read.

  • Reply to

    when a 20 dollar stock goes up 5%

    by barc37000 Jul 6, 2016 11:39 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jul 6, 2016 12:01 PM Flag

    The poor guy is bitter about having his shorts burned.

  • Reply to

    Trial Data

    by rabies_00 Apr 20, 2016 3:35 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Apr 23, 2016 1:29 PM Flag

    Jeff, then you wrote {{My take is that I don't have a clue about whether they somehow can salvage Sunrise in combo with previous trial stage data. We do not have enough information to determine what they can do. Part of me says no way, but the argument that they can is compelling if they were to discover something in the data that may sway the FDA. I am not banking on this.}}

    This is the delusional type of post I cringe at and feel compelled to address. What in Gd's name are you talking about with your "swaying" the FDA. The only thing I can conclude is you ACTUALLY STILL fantasize that the FDA can approve Bavi + DOC in NSCLC based on Sunrise. That is NOT possible and is sheer nonsense. If you keep posting that there is any chance the FDA can be persuaded to approve Bavi based on Sunrise, you will correctly be called a lying pumper and a complete imbecile. Stop it.

    Yes PPHM can keep looking at the data, and possibly find a biomarker that correlates with better outcome. If so than you can hope that PPHM might start a completely new trial from scratch based on that biomarker, but that seems like a foolish strategy and a waste of money to me.