Recent

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

ImmunoGen, Inc. Message Board

dr.vinmantoo 2203 posts  |  Last Activity: 22 hours ago Member since: May 18, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo 22 hours ago 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 22 hours ago 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

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 24, 2016 1:34 PM Flag

    Jeff,

    {{I suggest that you re-evaluate your position and quit telling other people that their research and opinions are hogwash compared to yours because you (and most everyone else) are not perfect and do not have all the information required to make a definitive statement as to whether Bavi works well or not.}}

    When people post absolute nonsense and gibberish, like CP often does, I will call him or her on it. I never said I had all the answers and am always open to more information.

  • 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

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 24, 2016 1:18 PM Flag

    CP's comments are absolute gibberish. He has no clue and just serially throws out long posts that have irrelevant facts, complete distortions and utter nonsense. As part of commentary touting Bavi, he said antibodies are restricted the bloodstream, that apoptotic cells doesn't express appreciable PS, and that you need to block 10 or 12 receptors to see an effect. These are demonstrably false.

  • Reply to

    Poor Cheynew and others

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 22, 2016 3:09 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 23, 2016 12:16 AM Flag

    I agree about Cheynew, she is reasonable but understandably worried.

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 21, 2016 12:47 PM Flag

    {{What are your thoughts on Giant Macrophage or Microspheres using human cells to determine the 200-300% increase in response rates? }}

    What are you babbling about? What does that have to do with Sunrise and PPHM supposedly submitting a BLA that will be approved by the FDA?

    {{Keep puffing out definitive statements, because if/when you are wrong it will be that much sweeter....but you are a know it all so you must be right? Right? : /}}

    Is this the way all PPHM longs behave? They throw out vague and baseless attacks in order to make them feel good about Bavi's prospects. Specify what supposedly definitive statements I made that you disagree with and why. Provide some evidence for your comments/viewpoint not merely that you disagree. Here is one for you. The FDA will never approved a BLA that PPHM might submit for Bavi based on current data since there is no data from a successful NSCLC trial available to analyze.

    By the way, I am sorry that you feel bad about my laughing at what your hero masshysteria wrote.

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 21, 2016 12:39 PM Flag

    {{. I believe (in other words my opinion) that Vin is so caught up in trying to prove himself right and discrediting anybody who challenges his position about PPHM and Bavi that he automatically slants what is being said in the most negative light....to the point that yeah, he reads but refuses to understand there is a different point of view and it isn't necessarily wrong.}}

    Total nonsense. I presented fact based views, and people like this masshysteria,CP and Biopharm respond with how they feel. I went back and reread some of the rubbish masshysteria wrote after Sunrise was stopped at the first futility look in and it is laughable.

  • Reply to

    Question for Jeff

    by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 21, 2016 12:36 PM Flag

    Thank for answer Jeff. However, I don't think you understand what is required to submit a BLA and get FDA approval. You actually need a clinical trial that was successful in the indication you are submitting. Bavi + docetaxel has ZERO successful clinical trials. I think where the confusion is coming from is that there is nothing from stopping PPHM from sending in a totally meaningless and incomplete BLA submission to the FDA. Of course, that will summarily be rejected (refuse to file) so it makes no sense unless it is a ploy to mislead shareholders or potential shareholders. It sure as hell won't enhance PPHM's reputation with the FDA for supposed future filings.

  • Reply to

    Pom pom pumps

    by givemebackmemoney Jun 20, 2016 1:53 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 21, 2016 12:50 AM Flag

    Biopharm is in high gear posting excerpts from and links to papers that have no bearing on Bavi or PPHM. It is both funny and sad.

  • Reply to

    Cloaks little brother, MassH, speaks!

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 20, 2016 12:42 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 21, 2016 12:49 AM Flag

    This masshysteria person sounds like a shameless pumper. Is the nonsense he posted today what he always posted in the past? The person posted this nonsense.

    {{Quote:It is for the same reasons that they had to pull the trigger for futility. Whether sub-groups show impressive efficacy and performance beyond average Chemo arm is irrelevant. Getting a recommendation to stop around late January 2016, and recognizing how options for patients have grown exponentially in terms of available clinical therapies and products, the only option was to go with the stoppage for futility. Even if they believed there was a chance for later separation among subgroups that would ultimately give them a better shot at positive results, especially coupled with a larger sample space (questionable) - only option was to stop. Give patients a choice, and do not get in the way of patient options such as joining a PDx trial. }}

    I smacked him down with {{You are trying to rationalize the Sunrise failure. There is no way PPHM would have stopped the trial if there was an indication that Bavi+Docetaxel showed good separation in the overall population. As far as subgroups, Bavi doesn't have an obvious marker like the anti-PD-L1/anti-PD1 approaches do. They might be able to fund one that correlates later, but correlation isn't causation. }}

  • dr.vinmantoo by dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 7:20 PM Flag

    CP keeps posting that PPHM will submit a BLA based on Sunrise and the corrupted phase II and the FDA will approved Bavi.

    Do you believe that nonsense about the BLA and FDA approval based? If so, please explain why.

  • Reply to

    Hey Antwan

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 5, 2016 10:12 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 20, 2016 12:10 PM Flag

    {{FIVE months go by in 2012 with obvious control arm performance issues but leadership never thinks to check arms a,b,c }}

    You mean when the "control" arm for that phase II was a mere 5.7 months, and when you looked at the Kaplan-Meier curves, the "control" arm showed a major drop at one time-point that resembled a plane crash that killed all the passengers?

  • Reply to

    1.00

    by jay_scott27 Jun 17, 2016 9:18 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 18, 2016 4:01 PM Flag

    Part 2 for Jeff,

    {{I don't always agree with all of them, but I listen to them and constantly evaluate what they say and what I know and decide how to go forth. Hell, I even listen to your posts, negative as they are because you make challenging points that seem they could have some validity}}

    They don't seem to have some validity, my posts do have validity. How about pointing out were I made errors instead of reflexively dismissing them merely because you don't like my pessimistic view.

    {{The only trouble with your posts is that it does appear you have a deeper hidden agenda because you really ignore more than you present}}

    My so called agenda is very clear. I hate it when people post total BS as PPHM uberlongs do on IHub, whether they do so out of ignorance, delusions or a desire to mislead}}

    {{. ...but the part you always ignore are the possible points that indicate Bavi does work. It appears you have set your mind it doesn't and your agenda is to prove yourself right rather than finding the real truth. The proof of whether Bavi will work or not has not been proven by you or anyone else....we need more information....you do not have enough to make it a fact that it doesn't.}}

    I never said Bavi can't work. I gave systematic reasons why its chances are very slim, especially compared to other immune modulatory approaches. Those reason were based on science to try and explain and the Bavi failures in clinical trials as opposed to successes of other approaches. Of course the outcome of Bavi has yet to be determined, and more data will help. However, investing is about risk/reward and playing the odds. The odds don't look good for Bavi right now.

    As far as agenda, you should be asking that about CP and other uber shills. No matter what happens with Bavi in trials, it is good news to them.

  • Reply to

    1.00

    by jay_scott27 Jun 17, 2016 9:18 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 18, 2016 3:50 PM Flag

    Jeff, try and not delete my post. Opposing positions help you better understand investments risks. Besides, I am now saving my posts so I can easily repost.

    {{Sorry, but although I am not at this point writing off your claims, I also do not agree with them either.}}

    It is your right to believe what you like. If you could back it up with data or scientific facts/reasoning, it might help instead of reflexively saying you don't believe me but believe CP.

    {{There isn't enough information available to say whether you or CP are wrong. To make a statement that CP is a nut and doesn't know Jack is in my opinion so far off that it is laughable.}}

    There is a lot of information and data consistent with what I am saying, that Bavi hasn't been effective and its chances for success are slim. In contrast, there is virtually no data to to support CP and his all-is-well, future is so bright for PPHM investors and Bavi that you have to wear shades fantasy. CP is a nut job, a delusional long who has lost touch with reality after losing so much money, or a shrewd manipulative short.

    {{I respect CP and he earned his reputation for respect better than you have in my eyes. He was the first to come out that the Phase 2 trial had been sabotaged by an employee and that has since pretty much been proven. Do I take everything CP writes as gospel?....no I gather all sources the use my own mind to decide what I believe is the truth.}}

    Oh CP has earned his reputation (see above). The phase II trial sabotage wasn't done by Big Pharma no matter how much CP and the conspiracy theorist idiots claim, nor is Big Pharma systematically killing people work on PS in oncology. CP is the moron spewing that Sunrise and Bavi didn't fail even though it was stopped at the first futility analysis. CP keeps posting that PPHM will submit a BLA based on Sunrise and the corrupted phase II and the FDA will approved Bavi.

    Answer this! Do you believe that nonsense about the BLA and FDA approval based?

  • Reply to

    Delivery of chemo with PS platform.

    by fiduciarydoozy Jun 18, 2016 10:30 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 18, 2016 3:29 PM Flag

    Sounds like a nice target as it might have the advantage of specificity. A key is to find out what happens in apoptotic cells in terms of numbers of PLEs exposed and how that compares to tumor cells, as well as whether apoptotic cells can clear them from the external face of membrane.

  • Reply to

    If I am reading this right,

    by tables777 Jun 17, 2016 10:42 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 17, 2016 8:34 PM Flag

    PGNX is currently at $4.62, which means you think it will be $5.62-$6.62 after Relistor approval. I say to goes to at least $7.

  • Reply to

    1.00

    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.

  • Reply to

    Today's closing will be over or under 7.62?

    by godhairyballs Jun 16, 2016 2:23 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 16, 2016 2:56 PM Flag

    Yes.

  • 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.

IMGN
3.13-0.19(-5.72%)Jun 24 4:00 PMEDT