You have to read this post on Investorevillage so you can see the links to the CELG and CLDA hit pieces Adam F wrote quoting "anonymous short sellers" - BOTH hit stocks but BOTH WERE HUGELY WRONG. Revlimid was approved and CELG went from $6 to $100+ - Adam was SOOO Wrong. Like he was on New River which was acquired by Shire like he was about PCYC Adam hit and it went up 10 times from where he trashed it and it was acquired for $21 billion by AbbVie - March of last yr. Adam is an incompetent political science major who is a puppet for short hedge funds desperate to cover before good news. He has been SO WRONG about XON, ZIOP (hated since $2), PCYC, ACAD, CLDA, New River....I always by dips on this idiots wrong articles...problem is XON only went down 15 cents and is up $3+ in a week since last Fridays AF hit piece and ZIOP ended GREEN despite this hit piece yesterday. Nobody buys this clueless fools BS anymore
Worthless Feurstein with is political science degree quoted wrong short hedge funds on CLDA - sais drug would not be approved. It was & FRX took it over for a double 2 months after AF lied about it. CELG at $6 he made like normal deaths in cancer drug trial would stop Revlimid from being approved crushed CELG for days - then Revlimid trials proved it saved lives increased survival its now a $7 billion drug. Trashed PCYC, ACAD, many others - he does it for hedge funds - he is almost always wrong. This time his lies could not even keep ZIOP down. Hedgies using him as they cannot cover the 35 million short shares without doubling this stock. Deals and data on deck - they are panicking
The first of Seeking Alpha's retractions for the lies in their article - expect many more when this is all over..
*MAY 3* Editor's Note --- The author has made a change regarding the allegation pertaining to Intrexon's Thomas Reed's supposed link to GT Life Science. The following footnote has been made at the bottom of Page 49: "Note that we have corrected the 4/27/16 version of this report to redact a few paragraphs on GT Life Science founder “Thomas Reed,” who we now believe to be a different “Thomas Reed” than Intrexon’s founder.."
"XON rec'd draft report, dated Dec2015, which contained similarly inaccurate claims & strikingly similar language,some parts identical words, used in report...XON received information that the source of the report was a particular hedge fund"
This is huge and yes buzz is this is already at a high level of the SEC....this excerpt is different than any SA hit piece investigation I have ever seen - THEY HAVE THE HEDGE FUND BEHIND IT. With a week's work they will be able to see if that fund made money on the manipulation which included the lies in Part 1. (See my previous posts attached)
Yesterday evening, Intrexon received a draft report, dated December 2015, which contained similarly inaccurate claims and strikingly similar language, in some parts identical words, to that used in yesterday's report. Moreover, Intrexon received information that the source of the report was a particular hedge fund seeking to discredit Intrexon.
The buzz is this one matters to Kirk - the others were a shot at whether things could work and jabs at science - this was basically calling RJ Kirk a fraud and accounting manipulator and XON a fraudulent company and compared XON to a private company that is under investigation (with no evidence at all) and it appears clearly there were funds involved with the writer. The coordination and time to do this is not one author or small short advocate. This was planned with short hedge funds and its CLEAR Kirk/XON already know the main hedge fund culprit and will spare no expense to bring them to justice. I believe this is already at a high level of the SEC and other agencies. They kicked a sleeping bear usually uninterested in temporary drops on attacks. No longer. I believe he will accelerated corporate initiatives as well on the ZIOP and XON side.
A short raid is okay - what you CAN'T do is this....
They are clearly very close to deals - Kirk will answer imo - could accelerate announcement subject to final due diligence - its easy to move it up a week or two if they are close - they just gave him more reason to.
You can set up a short raid, you can call a CEO stupid if you want, you can say his science is flawed - what you can't do is lie and
1) Accuse Kirk of creating a web of companies that seem to exist solely for the purpose of inflating XON’s revenue and profitability. (This is a total lie and PWC just opined the balance sheet for last 2 yrs and income statement and cash flow statements the last 3 yrs are clean).
2) Call XON partners almost all exclusively failed/shady microcaps. ( a lie – again these are real companies with clean audit opinions)
3) Accuse a mismatch between XON reported revenue recognition from partners and amounts partners claim to have paid to XON. Just not true as opined on by Price Waterhouse.
4) Call XON basically a fraudulent company “We believe that XON is the Theranos of the public markets” with actually no evidence.
The comparison to Theranos is ridiculous and IMO the inference is slanderous. Thead tells me this is to get the shorting bots/machines to short.. Once they see theranos mention whether true or not the machines short XON. I suspect RJ Kirk to come after these criminals legally after he deals with them with tangible business announcements and Sr mgt additions. I am sure he has this rag printed out and in his lawyers hands already so even if they delete it will be preserved.
PriceWaterhouseCooper (the most conservative audit firm in the world) 7 wks ago: "In our opinion, consolidated financial statements of Intrexon...present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Intrexon at Dec 31, 2015 & 2014"
Remember any BS on accounting that comes out tomorrow is completely counter to the full audit of PWC weeks ago. I worked in one of the accounting firms as a CPA and Price Waterhouse Coopers is Considered the most conservative auditor in the World. 7 weeks ago on Feb 29, 2016 they issued this audit opinion
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements of Intrexon Corporation listed in the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Intrexon Corporation and its subsidiaries at December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for these financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in Management's Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting appearing under Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements and on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audits (which were integrated audits in 2015 and 2014). We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
Intrexon Provides Update on Recent Stock Trading Activity
PR NEWSWIRE 7:15 AM ET 4/22/2016
GERMANTOWN, Md. , April 22, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Intrexon Corporation(XON) , a leader in synthetic biology, provided an update to its shareholders regarding recent trading activity in the company's common stock. On Thursday, April 21, 2016, a materially false and misleading report regarding the company, its subsidiaries and its chairman and CEO was published on Seeking Alpha, a financial blog.
Intrexon Corporation logo
Intrexon (XON) does not, as a general matter, respond to blog posts, investor reports or analyst communications. In this case, however, Intrexon(XON) is providing this update given the inaccuracy of the report's content, the stated intent of the publisher to issue several more spurious reports in the coming days, and information received last night regarding the erroneous publication.
Yesterday evening, Intrexon(XON) received a draft report, dated December 2015, which contained similarly inaccurate claims and strikingly similar language, in some parts identical words, to that used in yesterday's report. Moreover, Intrexon(XON) received information that the source of the report was a particular hedge fund seeking to discredit Intrexon(XON). The hedge fund, according to our information, desired to take a short position in the company's stock, was seeking a willing publisher of its report on the company, and intended to benefit from trading activity caused thereby.
Based on this information, Intrexon(XON) believes that it is the target of a campaign to manipulate trading in the company's securities, interfere with the company's business operations, and destroy the reputation of the company and its chairman and CEO. Intrexon(XON), with the advice of counsel, is taking appropriate steps in light of these developments. In the meantime, we wish to assure our investors, collaboration partners, and employees that the company remains dedicated to advancing our business and to generating value for our shareholders.
He FAILED four other treatments and tumor always grew back...the median survival for glioblastoma patients in this trial should be 12 weeks/3 months. Peacock is on therapy for over 10 months. All patients are alive. This IL-12 = veldimex even at the lowest dose is nothing short of a miracle. MRI shows tumor is not growing back. Last week's MRI was clean
Thanks - Griffin understands this company better than anyone. Has access to RJ Kirk and Chrystyna works just about full time on ZIOP/XON future deals
Leapfrogging the competition in TCR NK non-viral and neantigen targeting of solid tumors and also IL-12 as a platform but regulated to avoid off target tox and on target tox
The Dr Cooper quote was "EVERYONE WANTS TO TALK TO US, and we are talking to everyone" and "We are in discussions with every TCR company" Its not these two quotes, its not just RJ Kirk's dividend comments last yr that it will make it legally simpler and more tax efficient for XON or Big Pharma to take over ZIOP (and the fact that NOW any deal announced will be tax efficient and allow maybe a little less to close the deal), its not the recent immunotherapy comments Kirk had and the large deals in the work comment, its not the complete shutdown of talking ZIOP or ZIOP deals, its not the recent Rosenberg/Cooper abstract, recent Rosenberg Nature Medicine article, Recent Rosenberg SB quote and the other NK cell off the shelf, neoantigen target in solid tumor keys to the kingdom Cooper comment showing how ZIOP-MDA is leapfrogging the old technology of the competitors and the more expensive less safe viral approach, its not the recent comments on the IL-12 human data and amazing IL-12 + Checkpoint preclinical data and Cooper comments that such trial coming soon , its not T cells with TCRs in weeks, days then hours vs year for competitors - its not any of this alone but all of it combined....Cooper and Kirk are not liars...in fact I find them two of the most honest executives I have met in over 30 yrs of investing.....when you put together what they have been saying - there is only one conclusion. They are DEEP in deal discussions with Big Pharma/Biotech and they have shut down investor discussion of deals and must be close to something.
Scotti is probably spot on. I was a CFO/COO of two large companies including one NYSE company and as such I was involved in negotiations with some of the largest banks in the world and one of the largest automakers in the world. A huge bank and a huge automaker took over my companies. Scotti understands the progression of such negotiations as does polo_grill as noted in many previous posts on CELG board.....Deals start with small discussions usually - sometimes they take yrs...especially when Kirk knows what he has and with what Cooper and the various publications have disclosed..partnership discussions logically and inevitably bring up acquisition possibilities..wall street doesn't quite get it but you can be sure that the multiple, and clearly it is multiple, companies that are interested in the XON/ZIOP/MDA platform - they get it - and so does Kirk. Lets take checkpoint inhibitor + IL-12 trial where we know we have preclinical data supporting IL-12+Veldimix enhances the poor efficacy of checkpoint monotherapy in glioma (See Scotti or my posts on Cooper comments on why Checkpoints have trouble in glioma) - well lets say BMY wants to partner Opdivo with IL-12+V.....might start out with maybe $100 million upfront for the rights in only glioma plus milestones and royalties with BMY paying all the expenses...inevitably talks could turn to "how much for the entire IL-12 platform" and then - "well your entire market cap net of cash is less than a billion $, how much for the whole company...."
Then concurrently in separate negotiations there is likely to be at least two to three companies seriously wanting TCR deal with Kirk's starting point much higher than the $115 million per each two targets and up to $940 million for each two targets like Merck agreed to in the less powerful and useful CAR T area....expect the starting point to be $200 million for 2 TCR targets and over $1 billion per pair....with an 8 target deal like Merck got if all targets hit the milestones over $4 billion (Merck's CAR T is about $3.6 billion for all 8) .....well inevitably Big Pharma again says...."well if we are going to pay that for only TCR, what would it take for the entire company"....then you have Kirk go to Merck Serono head who he has a great relationship with and says....."Well you authorized me to say you are happy and on schedule with the CAR T partnership....so if you proceed max all in could be $3.6 billion just for CAR T.....do you really want GSK or Roche or XXX to have TCR and BMY or Merck to have IL-12 when you can have it all for just over what you have already tentatively committed for CAR T alone?"
Then you go to GILD - who based on the RBC report is awaiting Ph 1 and 2 data in oncology (which ZIOP just happens to have coming this quarter) and would like to make acquisitions in oncology and then you realize they are in desperate need of pipeline and could have all of ZIOP for one quarter's cash flow and a CVR. And we know Sam Broder knows them well.
There are so many very interested in ZIOP-XON-MDA that I suspect Scotti is right. Kirk could have inked a TCR deal already there is no doubt in my mind. I think he came close last yr. Would not be tough to get BMY or Merck US to ink an Opdivo or Keytruda -IL-12+V deal - this is not a lot of money for those companies to extend their most important drugs into glioma where they are struggling....It is clear from PUBLIC comments that ZIOP/Kirk are in deep discussions with multiple parties. Anything can happen....but I think Scotti has it right....doesn't mean an acquisition will happen - just that deals take longer when you have so many options and when each quarter the science and results and publications are getting better and better. And for the post that firms will need to see the ASCO data or preclinical checkpoint data first - if they have signed the required non-disclosure and are serious...that data has already been seen by then....When I have more time I will post in more detail the actual quotes and comments of Cooper and Kirk and other things that back all of this up. But I think either a series of partnerships are coming or an acquisition with a CVR protecting the upside while allowing twice as many INDs and approved drugs.
Are takeover discussions stalling Ziopharm’s partnership deals?
Great post by one of the best posters on IV ZIOP board “scott’”
There is a willingness of pharmaceutical sponsors to enter into collaboration and partnership deals, and to work together in an effort to accelerate progress against some of the most difficult-to-treat cancers. In addition, combination therapies have often been shown to be significantly more effective than monotherapy. And yet, with the exception of the Merck KGaA deal, Ziopharm has been found wanting on at least one clinically promising cooperation deal. I am talking about optimising the promise of IL-12 +Veledimex in combination with checkpoint inhibitors for a number of indications.
Now we know that Ziopharm are planning to combine IL-12 with a checkpoint inhibitor for GBM. MD Anderson are planning a single site exploratory trial in 2016. In my posts # 45814 and #45842 I suggested that IL-12 +Veledimex in combination with checkpoint inhibitors could be a very effective therapy in treating triple negative breast cancer. Today, I want to add melanoma to the list of cancers that could be successfully targeted by a combination of a checkpoint inhibitor and IL-12+Veledimex. Now Ziopharm has already run a Phase 1/2study for unresectable Stage III/IV melanoma with the conclusion that controlled and regulated IL-12 expression using Ad-RTS-hIL-12 + Veledimex is a promising immunotherapy for melanoma. This approach warrants further clinical investigation in particular in combination with other therapies. Furthermore Keytruda (Pembrolizumab) is already a single-agent treatment recommendation for advanced or metastatic melanoma. So, my question is why isn’t such a partnership deal (Keytruda and IL-12+Veledimex) being inked without delay because other companies seem to be doing just that?
Let me start by introducing the work of a tiny (MC of $35 m) biotech company, OncoSec Medical , and their corporate objectives for 2016. Their mission is to deliver safer and more effective intratumoral immunotherapies to provide long-term benefits for cancer patients. The fundamental goal of their technology, ImmunoPulse™ IL-12, is to promote a systemic, tumor-specific immune response. They believe this holds the greatest potential to provide meaningful clinical benefit to patients. Their objectives over the next year are focused on establishing clinical response data to support the combination rationale for ImmunoPulse™ IL-12 with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 as well as identifying a new lead candidate to expand their ImmunoPulse platform and deliver multiple immune molecules in a single treatment."
OncoSec's development milestones and value drivers over the next 12 months include:
• Complete patient enrollment in the Phase II combination trial of ImmunoPulse™ IL-12 with anti-PD-1 in patients with metastatic melanoma
• Present preliminary clinical and biomarker data from our Phase II melanoma clinical trials at upcoming scientific conferences; data to be used to finalize development strategy
• Identify novel "multi-gene" combination ImmunoPulse™ candidate
• Complete triple negative breast cancer pilot study as proof-of-concept and present interim data
OncoSec has announced a collaboration with the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the combination of Merck’s anti-PD-1 drug, Keytruda (pembrolizumab), and OncoSec’s ImmunoPulse therapy (intratumoral IL- 12), in a phase II metastatic melanoma study with patients non-responsive to Keytruda. This is an Investigator Sponsored Trial led by renowned Oncologist Dr. Alain Algazi at the prestigious University of California San Francisco and supported by OncoSec Medical and Merck Research Labs. This powerful combination is expected to treat the larger population of approximately 70% of the patients for which it is not currently effective by one of the most exciting breakthrough drugs in treatment of cancer.
For the last year, OncoSec has been focused on the tremendous unmet medical need of metastatic melanoma patients, who don’t respond to PD-1/PDL1 therapeutics. Unfortunately, these patients represent approximately 70% of metastatic melanoma patients. OncoSec data – both preclinical and clinical – demonstrates that intratumoral Immunopulse therapy with IL–12 drives an increase in TILs. Based on these data, we have proposed that Immunpulse IL-12 will “convert” anti-PD-1 non-responders into responders, leading to potentially enhanced clinical efficacy of PD-1. The field of immunotherapy is beginning to focus on where we’ve been for the last year – an awareness that PD-1 non-responders constitute a tremendous unmet medical need and business opportunity.
This collaboration is significant because of the speed of being able to get into a clinical trial to test our hypothesis and as a critical and positive step in the development of IL-12 immunotherapy. I believe this is yet another sign giving validation of the value of intratumoral immunotherapy and combinatorial approaches as part of an overall therapeutic regimen to treat cancer.
Now, the current lack of a comprehensive IL-12 and checkpoint inhibitor partnership deal by Xon/Ziop is a real head scratcher not least because the market value of these treatments is huge. The global melanoma treatment market value will rise to $3.6 Billion by 2020 and in the US alone will be worth $2.6 billion by the end of the forecast period. As previously posted, in the US, the cost of treating breast cancer was $16.5 billion in 2010 and it is expected to rise to $20.5 billion in 2020. Now, if triple negative breast cancer accounts for 15-20% of all cases then we are looking at a market worth about $4 billion just in the US alone. The combined glioblastoma market for the US, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan will rise from $659m in 2014 to $3.3bn by 2024. So, we are looking at a possible total market value of just these three indications in excess of $10 billion. That’s ten billion reasons why those partnership deals need to be inked with some degree of urgency. If tiny OncoSec with a MC of $35 million can do it, what on earth is preventing RJ from doing the same? Are takeover discussions really stalling Ziopharm’s partnership deals?
Rob's one post on CVRs is more informative and more intelligent than all of your posts combined and all of your future posts combined. Go away.