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

ONYX Pharmaceuticals, AŞ Message Board

dr.vinmantoo 145 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 28, 2016 12:52 PM Member since: May 18, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • 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


    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


  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

    MD ChrisL. and Jake colluding again

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 14, 2016 6:55 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 12:54 AM Flag

    Deleted post #4 finale: Geocappy wrote: {{I would live to see a comparison of control groups for BP or BP partnered companies vs small unafiliated biotechs to see how their various control groups performed. I think the results would be stunning. That is a bet I would like to wager on.}}

    I wrote: ""So you want to know if small underfund companies with little or no experience in running controlled trials run by potentially incompetent people are better or worse at designing controlled trials than major companies with a lots of experienced personnel and a long track record of success. Oh come on now.""

  • Reply to

    MD ChrisL. and Jake colluding again

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 14, 2016 6:55 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 12:53 AM Flag

    Deleted post #4. Geocappy has been whining about the corrupt FDA and Big Pharma being responsible for Sunrise's and Bavi's failure.

    Geocappy wrote: {{My concern is with the likes of BP, FDA, JB, etc how do we know each control arm is legit and fair as I can only imagine the BPs of the world have infiltrated the various people who do the randomization. How are they kept honest with all the new sensitive equipment and technology available to identify sicker patients. }}

    I wrote: ""That is the point of randomization and the power of numbers. You don't need to know everything. If PPHM management can't understand that, they should have hired people that do, supposedly like Garnick, or partnered with BP. The idea that BP and the FDA are at fault for all of Bavi's failed trials but not PPHM management and or Bavi are ludicrous.""

    Geocappy: {{Seems like judging each control group against the historical norm would be a way to keep them somewhat honest or explain how an honest control group( of the same combo of chemo and placebo) could perform so well. Why shouldn't the sponsor be able to find it unreliable with all the new technology.}}

    I wrote: ""Oh come on now. You randomize current patient populations, and then make sure as best you can that the group are balanced for what you do know. You use the power of numbers to try and balance out as well as possible for things you do know. That is the best you can do. Using historical controls approach is exactly the wrong approach.""

  • Reply to

    MD ChrisL. and Jake colluding again

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 14, 2016 6:55 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 12:48 AM Flag

    Deleted post #3: North40000 and geocappy posted that historical controls are better than a control arm so should be used for Sunrise. My exchange was with North40000. I posted that historical controls aren't reliable and explained why.

    North40000 wrote this nonsense: {{If the historical control arm(s) data is "unreliable", what makes the contemporaneous control arm data any more reliable? It seems to me that, in effect, you indict any and all control arms as inherently, and necessarily, unreliable.}}

    I wrote: ""You have got to be joking.""

    North added: {{In other words a great number of factors, known and unknown, accompany each patient in each control arm and each treatment arm. Even the number of factors accompanying each patient is unknown. That is as true of the contemporaneous control arms as it is true of the variance present in the historical control arms.

    BTW, my Masters thesis at Princeton involved Design and Analysis of Experiments in a certain 14 variable field, with all 14 variables' effect and each 2-factor interaction[but for 3] effect accurately calculated in 1032 experiments, Box-Hunter approach. G.E.P.Box was then at U. Wisconsin, and S. Hunter was still at Princeton.}}

    I wrote: ""You have got to be joking. You cannot possibly have any knowledge of statistics to make such a claim. Patient populations change over time with more sensitive detection methods identifying patients earlier, better classifications of stage of disease progression and different types of previous anti-cancer treatments. This renders historical controls as very weak metrics. Any one well-versed in statistic knows the best solution is too create a pool of patients and then randomly assigning them into different patient arms taking care to make sure the variables you do know are equally distributed amongst the arms. You also need the power of numbers to help account for variables you don't know about, which means larger trials are better than smaller ones.""

  • Reply to

    MD ChrisL. and Jake colluding again

    by learningcurve2020 Jun 14, 2016 6:55 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 12:37 AM Flag

    The IHub deleters are out in force as they can't handle the truth. Four of my last 5 posts were deleted.

    Deleted post #1. hopefilled2014 posted {{North, you are one of the bright spots here keeping the hounds from the door of despair. Can't thank you enough.}}

    I wrote: ""Actually, you shouldn't be thanking him as he doesn't talk about problems, competitors nor probabilities of success in any realistic manner.""

    Deleted post #2 One of the longs questioned why jq1234 and other critics post on the PPHM IHub board.

    {{and I ask, as always, why do you think they do hang around?
    In MY opinion, that proves that we have a PEARL of extraordinary value}}

    I wrote: ""A lot of people despise misinformation and pumpers spewing nonsense ad nauseam. The repeated posts that Surnise was not a failure, that a BLA would come out of the failed Sunrise trial, that the FDA would allow PPHM to drop the control arm of Sunrise then use a historical control as a basis for FDA approval did it for me. You just can't let total BS like that go unchallenged as there might be a few people who are actually fooled by the pumpers and lose even more money.""

  • Reply to

    New to the board

    by tables777 Jun 14, 2016 11:54 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 15, 2016 12:18 AM Flag

    Read the posts on the board.

  • 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?

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 11, 2016 1:16 PM Flag

    {{Cap'n when you see the predicted buyout price per share claims that frequent this mb, realize that they are puffery (better ingredients makes better pizza!). If you want a BOE guess, take your best guess at realistic lifetime revenue to EXEL from Cabo and Cobi and halve it. Alternatively use a realistic (not best case) peak sales estimate and multiply it by 3.5. Don't use comparisons to companies with ongoing drug discovery platforms or full pipelines for comparison. }}

    Ernie, interesting formula for determining buyout price. I like the peak sales one. How did you come up with them? Was it based on an analysis of multiple examples of buyouts?

  • Reply to

    Potention of Japan deal

    by dartgator Jun 10, 2016 11:08 AM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 11, 2016 3:30 AM Flag

    {{Keep eating those Big Macs ernie, while the rest of us are dining on foie gras and Chilean Sea Bass. }}

    You mean you will be eating goose liver and Patagonian tooth fish. I am not sure why some people take such offense to Ernie selling some EXEL. Ernie is being honest and telling you what he is doing when he is doing it. Respect that. I sold of 10% of my MDVN yesterday to book some profit, and likely to do the same with some EXEL in the near future.

  • Reply to


    by noonangf1225 May 31, 2016 12:58 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 9, 2016 12:15 PM Flag

    {{Any thoughts re whether Valiant's woes might negatively impact on relistor sales going forward?}}

    Actually, it might benefit PGNX as Valeant sees oral Relistor as a a good way to rapidily increase income, something they desperately need.

  • dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 8, 2016 8:47 PM Flag

    Thanks for noticing. Did you see what the idiots on IHub are now alleging? Big Pharma could buy PPHM for a rounding error in their budgets. Instead of doing that, the IHub conspiracy theorists propose a conspiracy by Big Pharma not only to sabotage PPHM trials, but to actually to kill off people doing PS research in order to stop targeting drugs from getting approved by the FDA. How funny is that?

  • Reply to

    A little Profit Taking

    by itssofine2 Jun 7, 2016 10:14 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 8, 2016 5:44 PM Flag


    {{Vin the notion was not one I thought of myself, it's already being discussed in Congress. My opinion is that it probably will not happen, but I am certain the idea will be floated again and used as threat to help drive a compromise}}

    I am not blaming nor crediting you for the idea. I was merely pointing out that drug companies know how much of their product is being sold in different countries. They are going to notice a dramatic spike in Canadian sales combined with a decrease in US sales. They will respond by limiting sales to Canada.

  • Reply to

    A little Profit Taking

    by itssofine2 Jun 7, 2016 10:14 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 8, 2016 5:40 PM Flag

    {{Looking at it the other way, it really isn't reasonable for the US population to subsidize drug costs for the rest of the world. Here we essentially pay top prices while other countries regulate and cap drug prices. We are fools to allow this as a nation. }}

    Bingo! We are being taken as suckers for the rest of the developed economies.

  • Reply to

    A little Profit Taking

    by itssofine2 Jun 7, 2016 10:14 PM
    dr.vinmantoo dr.vinmantoo Jun 8, 2016 11:58 AM Flag

    Ernie, {{A quick fix is to simply allow imported drugs. Again, not without problems, but doable.}}

    That might have a minor short term effect but there is no way drug companies are going to allow major amounts of their drugs to be shipped to Canada at lower cost and then be resold to the US market. I do agree that some form of price negotiation agreements are coming in the US.