charles, now you are stuck in that dog LPTN and OHRP (remember, you told us you were long OHRP as a hedge).
Maybe Pancoast will take you in a ride in his Lamborgini after the LPTN shareholder meeting this week. After all, you and the other LPTN shareholders bought it for him. Zoom, zoom!
Still waiting to see who buys that iSONEP option from PFE, when was that supposed to happen, April? Can you ask Pancoast about that for me? Thanks!
Correct me if I'm wrong, there was no statistical significance to the visual acuity differences? How often do we actually see statistical significance even in PhII small sample that disappears when we have 300+ patients as will be required in PhIII? And since squalamine didn't decrease lesion size as the calmodulin binding theory suggested, we don't really know what it's doing in there, do we? Help me understand, how do we get visual acuity improvements without reducing lesion size? Couldn't the acuity difference seen thus far end up being just a statistical anomoly? As a lay person I have no way of putting into perspective how significant an improvement of 10.4 letters vs 6.3 letters is or how credible the idea of improved visual acuity without reducing lesion size is.
On the conference call, Slakter even had to beg off on how/why squalamine improved visual acuity since it didn't reduce injections, the primary endpoint. To quote Slakter 'It APPEARS squalamine is exerting it's effect in a more basic level, at the pathophysiology of the disease, at the neovascular tissue, at fibrosis and inflamation that MIGHT be associated with it.' I'd feel a lot better about squalamine if Slakter said WE KNOW that squalmine is improving visual acuity because it...... ('It appears' and 'might' don't give me a lot of confidence we know just what is going on).
Also on the call Slakter made it clear there is no provision or plan to tweek the retreatment criteria in the current trial and no plan to start a PhIII trial until PhII is complete. Thus any trial with more favorable retreatment criteria is going to need to go through the entire FDA process. That's going to take another two years.
Maybe a big pharma will be willing to throw some seed money at OHRP to keep them going, but for now we have significant cash burn from the current trial AS WELL AS FUNDING SKS and it's early stage trials before we ever see if the visual improvements are actually real.
Adam feeling his oats.
Remember back on April 25th when Opimist_77 was in full rant mode he babbled on about how he had researched 12 biotech stocks that had announced PhII interim or final data and that all of them we up 30-50% in the 60 days leading into the announcement.
He never did disclose the names, but nobody ever expected it.
Our resident know-it-all asserts that 'price is everything'. The market knows all! If the price isn't rising, RESULTS WILL BE BAD! Some woman said it on Wall $treet Week 15 years ago, so it MUST be flawlessly true.
Somewhere in the thread that followed, Mr. Know-it-all challenged us to find one biotech stock that had fallen ahead of positive PhII results.
By chance, over the weekend I was doing a little historical due diligence (something that seems to challenge wonderboy) and took a look at the price action of a small, relatively unknown biotech that was doing a trial in the wet AMD space a while back. Maybe you've heard of the company, it's called REGENERON. Symbol is REGN, just in case Optimist hasn't run across them in his extensive due diligence. REGN had zero product revenue and was burning $20MM cash per qtr.
On March 27, 2007 (a Tuesday morning a week after options expiration), REGN announced positive Interim PhII results for an obscure drug they called VEGF-Trap (you might be familiar with it's new name, they call it Eylea).
So how did REGN stock perform for the 30 & 60 days ahead of PhII interim results? It HAD to be up 50% if you believe douchebagg_77, right? Nope, that wasn't quite the case. For 30 days prior to results REGN was DOWN 9%, for 60 days ahead of results it was DOWN 4%. The stock was actually DOWN 23% from it's high a few months prior.
Amount I can lose on my OHRP investment?.................................. Zero, I'm riding house money.
Value I gain making fun of Jerkwadd_77 who has lost a boatload on OHRP? .............. Priceless!
L10, for some reason I have lost my ability to login to your board.
I've tried password reset three times with no success.
I put in a request for help to the web site two days ago. No response.
?? I don't know, here is what the OPHT p.r. said....
The collaboration also provides for the potential development of a fixed combination delivery of a co-formulation of Fovista® with a Novartis proprietary anti-VEGF product which would result in additional flexibility for physicians.
Is Novartis looking to create a new molcule specifically designed to complement Fovista in a co-formulation???
Maybe it's just pie in the sky possibility to reinforce the extent of the collaboration.
Stuart, where does Novartis 'proprietary' anti-VEGF product stand? Haven't heard much mention of it here on the board.
OPHT in Fovista partnering deal with Novartis, gets $330MM upfront with potential for over a billion.
And who do we partner with......SKS! And we have to pay them.
OHRP always a bridesmaid.
Still occupied with other things, haven't yet decided my ultimate view on the SKS deal.
I'm having trouble logging into the L10 board so I'll post this here. Things that make you go hmmmmm.......
Can we agree on some terminology. Specifically the term blinded/unblinded?
As I understand it, the term 'unblinding' means that patients find out if they received the active drug or if they received placebo. This is a distinct, separate, and very different issue from 'releasing' overall results data, such as will soon be done on the PhII squalamine trial.
Per my previous conversation with Beckenroth, the trial will remain BLINDED when the PhII interim results data is released. Thus our buddy Bob who hasn't needed an injection in months won't know if it was spontaneous regression or if it was squalamine.
When PhII data is 'released' the company will receive anonymous aggregated data regarding the entirity of the first patient cohort. If what Beckenroth previously told me is true, they will also be receiving quite detailed data on each patient, however it will remain BLINDED and anonymous.
They'll see anonymous data regarding patients 1 thru 60, but WILL NOT be able to find out if our world renowned patients Bob and/or Luela received the active drug or received placebo. To release such information would taint the remaining trial active patients and their doctors, something the FDA of course would frown upon.
If I'm off base would somebody with specific knowledge please correct me.
Maybe somebody wants to waste some time calling or emailing Beckenroth for clarification. I've tired of it.
Exactly. It's just a really strange timing issue.
Stuart is clearly our retina community person and hence why I value and ask for his input.
Stuart do you have a working email yet?
Stuart, are you suggesting they bought the company as a signing bonus?
If interim results prove positive, they'd have a stack of resumes 30 deep of heavy hitters wanting to take the reigns. Why take your eye (pun intended) off the ball with such a pivotal event so close? And doing it with heavily discounted shares?
What would be the urgency in doing it now, why not wait 6 weeks and see if you can pick up even heavier hitters?
A real optimists (another pun) take would be that these are Hirschman's / Dr. T's buddies and they want to let them in on the upcoming stock rise at cheap prices. It's the only way I can make sense of the timing.
Of course this same argument of giving shares to framily was made when the company issued the heavily discounted shares.
And like you said about the delayed release technology acquisition, everybody and their brother have been working on it for decades, and correct me if I'm wrong aren't there already some well established leaders who are not specifically in ophthalmology.
Busy on multiple other things and still need to listen to that conf call.
I've never been concerned about the lack of depth,
Much appreciated if you would opine.
Yeah, I still have my shares. Yeah I'm probably waiting for PhII interim results, but frankly this doesn't smell good.
Unfortunately I was away from the screens this afternoon so didn't catch the CC live. I hope somebody with some cojones asked some hard questions. The call is currently being archived.
This is text book small cap biotech smoke screen ahead of bad results.
When a company is in a position like OHR, just weeks from a potential monster stock move and a whole bunch of more important things to do in preparation for PhIII trials, why would you distract management with this move?
I can't wait to listen to the call to hear the explanation. It's probably going to be something like.....adding experienced personnel to prepare for the next phase of the company, or.... we are filling out our pipeline.
I really hope I am wrong, but unless I hear something unexpected, this is a bummer. I hope I don't go Opti on this company.
Opti & Feuerstein will probably have a good time with this move.
When OHRP said results wouldn't come until June, it gave shorts free reign to to press their positions. Everything and anything in speculative small cap biotech is getting whacked right now. EVERYTHING.
Presuming the shorts are professionals, they going to take a victory lap and cover a lot of their position. It would take a serious sent of cojones to have a naked short position into data.
Unless of course somebody who knows something is doing this., but I'm just not the conspiracy theory type.
That Robert Marcin guy and all of his minions had to be getting stopped out enmasse. No serious trader would ride this thing all the way back down like this.
I sure wish those call option premiums would come in some more. The stock has dumped 25% and the offer prices have barely budged.
This sure looks like our mistress doing it's best to separate the most money possible from the most people.
It was fascinating watching the pro shorts force the stock below $7 to take out stops.
Grabbed some trading shares this morning at $7.03..... Lets see what happens.
I may have mentioned this already, but in one of my conversations with Beckenroth, I asked... if you're not going to halt the trial for efficacy, than what is the benefit of interim data readout. Other than the obvious to see if there is early efficacy, it's also to give them an early opportunity to see flaws in their trial design and improve the design of a potential PhIII trial.
I can only presume they will also use the early data (which will supposedly be detailed, although still blinded until trial conclusion) to fine tune treatment of the second cohort of patients to reduce variability and decrease any masking of efficacy.
I sure hope they were making those robo calls to remind patients to take their drops, but with a two man show doing their first FDA trial on a shoe string budget, there is no assurance of anything. Steep learning curve on this trial.
I just emailed OHRP, basically asked what they are doing to prevent misdiagnosis of trial participants and if this is contributing to increased trial size.
Not really expecting an answer, but if history is any guide, they'll mention the topic in future public communications.
Press release just hit. Any thoughts Stuart?
Dr's Roth, Singerman, and Boyer are all part of the trial. All members of the Advisory Board.
Either these guys are collecting some nice paychecks to run trials on a drug in which they don't believe or there must be something to this drug.....