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

ImmunoGen, Inc. Message Board

dr.vinmantoo 145 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 25, 2016 1:25 AM Member since: May 18, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    'Major win' in pancreatic cancer fight'

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 4, 2016 4:30 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 4, 2016 5:50 PM Flag

    I always enjoy a good sarcastic post. Thanks.

  • Reply to


    by noonangf1225 May 31, 2016 12:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 4, 2016 5:47 PM Flag

    Valeant is in even more trouble. Hard to see how this can be anything but a drag on PGNX, and it raises the
    question of how are they going to pay the $50 million milestone due PGNX on Relistor approval.


  • 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

    Insulting surgically

    by erniewerner May 31, 2016 7:25 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 2, 2016 12:07 PM Flag

    {{My comment regarding ignorant, overbearing MDs was way out of line. Dr Vinny's pomposity triggered some bad memories about a couple of MDs I've worked with in the past.}}

    Yes that was funny. Some people upset me several years ago so I lashed out. It wasn't my fault.

  • Reply to

    Insulting surgically

    by erniewerner May 31, 2016 7:25 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 2, 2016 1:50 AM Flag

    Ernie, I know I am a likely target of your post. I already apologized for responding to the dismissive, condescending politically oriented post made by one of the regulars here. I did notice a few of them so made a comment not on topic for the EXEL message board. Whether or not that person is a regular contributor is irrelevant. This joeflow person has also made some pretty condescending posts directed at MDs and to myself. Sure he can blame it on some long-held wound from his past but better just to acknowledge the error, apologize and move on.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 1, 2016 11:57 AM Flag

    Learningcurve, so this looks like Rubicon is a competitor of PPHM, and is already ahead in terms of partnering/deals. How in the world can PPHM longs spin that into a positive?

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 1, 2016 2:22 AM Flag

    learningcurve, I never heard of Rubicon but from the website it looks like they are just in the pre-clinical stage, at least for oncology.

  • Reply to

    Semi-serious question for the Bashers

    by jeff4iam4 May 27, 2016 12:21 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 31, 2016 12:14 PM Flag

    {{Great post Dr, Vin. Bavi Half life was always an issue as are the plethora of different cell types exposing PS. Then there's clearing all those cells in an efficient way without inflammation and taxing phages. Then there are other differentiators between dying cells and cancer cells, of course. And proper dosing along with cost was a total unknown. In short, all the issues never discussed on their cc's. }}

    Thanks learningcurve. I figured you would be aware of these shortcomings and possible explanations of why Bavi keeps failing. Yes, these need to be raised after each trial failure then repeated after each person who attacks those who raise doubts by hurling their FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) mantra. FUD is exactly what is called for, not just for PPHM, but for any investor in early stage or unapproved treatments.

    There is more that I will follow up on, as well as discussing on King's laughable reasons why Bavi is supposedly superior to monoclonal antibodies that target immune inhibitory receptors tumor cell receptors when the opposite is true.

    I don;t know enough about the supposed anti-viral abilities of Bavi, but if it were a great mechanism surely there would have been some movement on that front after decades.

  • Reply to

    Semi-serious question for the Bashers

    by jeff4iam4 May 27, 2016 12:21 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 31, 2016 1:53 AM Flag

    Bavi targets exposed PS. There are about 1 billion lipid molecules/cell and there are estimates of 3%-10% (30-100 million) of these are PS. How many are exposed on tumor cells? Hard to get a read but Jurkat cells are estimated to have 600,000 PS molecules/cell exposed but this can rise to 25 million/cell. That is a lot of targets for bind to Bavi, and a heel of a lot more than PD-1 receptors on T-cells. You also have to consider that oncology patients tend to be older, and that means lots of cells undergoing apoptosis. Cells undergoing apoptosis expose PS and so act as a sink to draw off the short-lived Bavi antibody molecules. You also have to consider that chemo is going to induce cell death for non-tumor cells, providing another sink for Bavi antibody. Put these together and you might begin to understand why Bavi hasn’t done well in human trials or when combined with chemo.

  • Reply to

    Semi-serious question for the Bashers

    by jeff4iam4 May 27, 2016 12:21 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 31, 2016 1:51 AM Flag

    Well, it looks like all the very confident longs can't or won't answer. {{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?

    PPHM longs keep having their hats on pre-clinical work on cell lines or mouse models. That is a very low bar for any drug to clear. The tumors in mouse models are designed to develop quickly and are more homogeneous than human tumors. In addition, the mice are young and have robust immune systems. The repeated failure of Bavi in multiple human trials means you have to start asking questions like the following on I previously posed.

    {{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?}}

    Bavi has multiple strikes against it in this regard. I believe Bavi has a half-life of about 1 day, which is relatively short. You want your antibody to remain around to mediate its effects, and successful therapeutic antibodies generally have much longer half-lives than one day.

    More important/problematic is the target numbers. How many antibody-binding targets are present, and what percentage of the receptors must to be bound by your antibody to elicit the desired response? There are only about 10,000 PD-1 receptors on a T-cell, and so at most that many antibody molecules need to be bound to relieve the PD-L1 inhibition, but the number is likely much smaller.


  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 30, 2016 5:48 PM Flag

    gizmondo and ulingt,

    Please accept my apology for engaging in such a thread. I don't want to engage in politics on a message board as there are numerous forums for that. However, someone does raise the topic and spouted ignorance, I responded. Based on his or her responses, nothing this wilder person has to say on the topic has any value, so is of no interest to me. As far as I am concerned, the thread is ended.

  • {{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

    Sensitive little fellows on Ihub.

    by dr.vinmantoo May 28, 2016 3:00 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 30, 2016 12:43 PM Flag

    Lemmy I did as you suggested, removed anything that could be remotely considered a personal attack. The administrator deleted it immediately. Maybe my mistake was putting it all in one post. In any event, that is a truly bizarre response and it makes me suspect that paid PPHM pumper shills are paying off people to keep their board free of accurate criticisms.

  • Reply to

    Good article in S.A.

    by cal_doon May 27, 2016 9:14 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 30, 2016 12:38 PM Flag

    {{May be true that Valeant could buy PGNX but just read some articles regarding their HUGE debt. Any realistic ideas on how PGNX can EFFECTIVELY punt is Valeant fails to be their source of sales? Thanks in advance.}}

    I did say "assuming Valeant can straighten themselves out", didn't I. If they can't and they don't want/can't pay PGNX the $50 million milestone due upon Relistor Oral formulation approval, then a few possibilities exist. They can give the rights to back to PGNX, rework the deal to give PGNX less of a milestone in exchange for a much higher percentage of Relistor profits, or sell the rights to another company assuming they are allowed to by the deal with PGNX. Does anyone think it is possible that Valeant submitted an incomplete application to the FDA for Relistor approval on purpose to delay the $50 million milestone payment?

  • Reply to

    Up 12% pre-market !!!!!

    by jay_scott27 May 26, 2016 8:55 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 30, 2016 1:52 AM Flag

    What's the matter jay, are you getting nervous? So, did you sell any of your supposed PPHM stock to lock in your supposed gains yet?

  • Reply to

    Nomad, jonesdexter, milkman, et al...

    by wilderguide May 28, 2016 12:05 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 29, 2016 2:01 PM Flag

    {{Go ahead, vote for Hillary...hide behind her skirts...
    Perhaps she'll offer protection from heartless meanies like me...
    In return, she'll only want your guns, your political soul, and your testicles for earrings... }}

    Don't tell me you are so stupid and gullible that you are actually considering voting for Donald Drumpf.

  • 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

    Sensitive little fellows on Ihub.

    by dr.vinmantoo May 28, 2016 3:00 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 29, 2016 1:56 PM Flag

    Excellent suggestion lemmy. Thanks. Looks like the "educated" and "informed" longs are unable or unwilling to answer my questions about Bavi except for the usual simplistic fluff. I will have to give them the cold hard reality myself soon.

  • Reply to

    Sensitive little fellows on Ihub.

    by dr.vinmantoo May 28, 2016 3:00 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo May 28, 2016 5:33 PM Flag

    I objected to the removal of my post for being off-topic. The administrator reviewed my post on the PPHM board and agreed that it was off-topic so should be removed. Right, a post where all I talked about was Bavi, and Bavi trials on the PPHM board is off-topic. Wow, I guess off-topic on the PPHM board means not believing the fantasies about Bavi and its magical powers that only PPHM longs can see.

  • 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?

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