Overly optimistic...speaking of which, where is Sal today? Nevermind, that pest is not on ignore.
Fur - I agree with your statement. Cautiously optimistic is optimal in the case of ONCS.
Fur - Speaking of M&A activity.
Any thoughts on Actavis (ACT) buying Forest (FRX), then FRX acquiring Furiex (FURX) at least 4-6/months before ACT even closes the FRX deal?
Does it strike you as odd or simply business as usual that a company being acquired is now also still acquiring another company. Furiex (FURX) was a awesome stock the past 6 months.
Ignorant response by another resident idiot.
Thumbs down and added to the ignorant ignore list. Join the ranks of Mensa, Sal, Effin, etc etc
Apex - No matter how you splice it though, immunotherapy, immuno-oncology and training your body's immune systemic to fight cancer naturally is the future. This cannot be disputed.
The old days of trial and error treatments, 18/25 year or even lifetime patent protection (Epogen) is long-gone. Everyone, big or small know immuno-oncology is the treatment path for the next 10-25 years.
PVCT looks relatively good here to be honest. Results were nice and seeing it's already had a 50% haircut...limited downside.
That is correct. It's also a double-edged sword because the rate of failure for internal treatments (breast, cervical, lungs, liver, etc) will have a MUCH GREATER failure rate that a topical treatment. This is why INO has come under much pressure lately (nearly a 45% haircut) whereas ONCS is mainly holding it's ground. It's much easier to treat topically versus internally.
Internally is pretty much unproven and is a big ? mark at the current time.
This could change in time....but not as of today or tomorrow.
Now imagine if INO can successfully treat a breast-cancer tumor with a metastatic spread to maybe your lungs/liver/kidneys/etc. If their internal electroporation treatment for breast cancer treated on-location (the breast) can chase the same breast cancer cells attacking your lungs/liver/kidneys, etc...You're talking about an amazing SYSTEMIC RESPONSE. It's miles ahead of chasing topical diseases such as Melanoma.
Don't get me wrong Melanoma is a start but Inovio is years ahead of ONCS in my opinion.
Cameron, it's relatively close in comparison.
The main difference is ONCS is aiming for topical treatments such as Melanoma whereas INO is going for more internal, bigger money, bigger opportunistic markets such as Cervical Cancer, etc.
We're playing with the little money trying to capture a $300-million dollar market on top of your skin whereas Inovio is trying to same delivery technology inside of your body. Dr. Kim & Inovio are chasing the holy grail and setting their sights high for the multi-billion dollar market.
Sal - Keep drinking the kool-aid bro. There was also a near zero-risk with WorldCom, Enron, Lehman Brothers, Real Estate Investing and even Bernie Madoff.
I like the ONCS technology and delivery however your permabull (nothing can ever go wrong mindset) is very bad to possess. The permabulls are the one's that get destroyed in the market, such as GALE for instance. You're full of helium my friend, come back to reality.
FDA loves drugs from plants or plant extracts.
What the FDA does not like is immuno-oncology single-manufactured response drugs created in petri-dishes such as Provenge from Dendreon. Provenge was lucky to get approved.
Sal - I respect your opinion and all but are you slow or something?
The use of plants as medicines has a long history in the treatment of various diseases. The plant-derived compounds have a long history of clinical use, better patient tolerance and acceptance. To date, 35,000-70,000 plant species have been screened for their medicinal use. Plants especially those with ethnopharmacological uses have been the primary sources of medicine for early drug discovery. Fabricant and Farnsworth, (2001) reported that, 80% of 122 plant derived drugs were related to their original ethnopharmacological purposes. Current drug discovery from plants mainly relied on bioactivity–guided fractionation and led to isolation of many important anticancer drugs such as paclitaxel, camptothecin etc.
Nearly 25% of the blockbuster drugs listed by the World Health Organization have originated from plants or plant extracts.
You lost all my respect on this board, to the ignore list you go.
You're clearly a misinformed permabull and see no wrong with ONCS and everything wrong with everyone else's technology. You're dead wrong buddy. Ignore list you go.
Wait - I agree with your sentiment.
I wish this board honestly had more bashers, meaning relevant bashers/shorts that can actually form a legitimate argument why their stance is to either: Sell, short or not buy at all. These folks could present a valid argument, which honestly makes for great debate and conversation (healthy conversation).
All we seem to attract is the resident bipolar folks like Effin and a few others who create twenty posts like rapid-fire to clog up the board. This is the nonsense that upsets folks on message boards.
I'm LONG and been LONG awhile here but I'm not going to lie, I'm all about learning someone's sentiment about not wanting to buy shares or believing this is a short, rather than a buy. Personally I would never short anything under five, let alone a buck or less...that's plain stupidity. Baby bios can move so fast on news a 70 cent stock could close at $2 or $3 the next day on great news. Then jump to $4 or $5 the next day on repeated excitement. That's simply suicide if you ask me.