Meaning you don't think Phase IIb will commence before the end of the year? Not sure how they can initiate that trial by the end of the year, as they have stated several times that they will, without announcing the partner, which they have also acknowledged that they will have.
First off, I am not your enemy so try and relax. Second, thanks for confirming that no where in this abstract does it say that anti-PD-1 was used. I know what the PR said, and I know what your article says, and I know what the data says.
It is not a new study. Go back and read the PR again. They are presenting data from a couple different studies. The main three points are as follows: 1. Intratumoral electroporation of IL-12 generates a local as well as distant response. We knew this, but will finally get to see data on it (nothing to do with anti-PD-1). 2. Data from the Phase II melanoma trial support the findings from the B16 preclinical mouse that IL-12 increases TIL (again we knew this and again nothing to do with anti-PD-1). 3. (The point you are trying to stress) 20/20 of the B16 mice showed complete regression in pre-clinical trials. Of course this was likely combined with anti-PD-1. However that is not a new trial or newly collected data. It is the first time they are sharing it with us so it is *new* in the sense that we are finally hearing the details of it.
I agree that this is spectacular data and is something anyone interested in this company and treating cancer should be excited about. However, it came across to some that you were implying that this entire abstract was based on data from an anti-PD-1 trial. That is how it came across to me as well, and that is obviously not correct. I am sure it was just a mis-communication. Thanks.
Where are you seeing that anti-PD-1 was used in this study? Unless I am missing something it looks as though this was strictly IL-12/electroporation.
Very anxious to see the abstracts. It's interesting that the PR for the ESMO presentation was not included in the PR announcing that ONCS was presenting at five events in September. It came separately a few days later.
One could easily conclude that that is because ONCS became unblinded to the data after that first PR hit the wires, so they waited until after they locked in their position at ESMO to PR it separately. That, to me, strongly suggests that they have some important new data to report, as it's unlikely they would go out of their way to PR this event separately and draw attention to it otherwise.
I guess well have to see, but that is how I interpreted this sequence of events.
Just throwing this out there, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a positive PR of some sort in the next few days to help keep the pps steady.
It's too tough tell anything just yet. Many brokers don't even have BCLID listed yet and therefore it is unable to be traded. I think tomorrow we'll have a better idea of how the reaction will be. I have cash on the side ready to pounce in the event there is a quick panic dump.
Derp! You got me! Show me where I have pumped anything? I provide facts and discuss them. You make blanket BS statements without ever backing it up. Don't ask me to show you, because I will.
LOL, td you realize that when you bash every single positive PR that comes out and every single aspect of this company that no one takes you seriously. They simply dismiss you as lead troll of the board.
Stop trying so hard and maybe you will eventually dupe someone into believing your BS.
Based on the PR today it looks like they technically did complete the r/s yesterday...at 11:59pm, lol. It also looks like as soon as they get past the 5 day limit above $3.00 they will do the up-list.
The day is finally here for BCLI.
I am on record saying I don't think this r/s and up-list is going to be such a big deal, and I stand by that. Sure I think there will be some volatility, and wouldn't be surprised to see a huge dump right at the opening bell with a slow recovery throughout the day. But when all is said and done and everything is settled, I don't not expect the market cap to be much, if at all, lower than the current $64M valuation.
I do expect another round of fundraising in the near future, and that could if course change things. Should be an interesting day and couple weeks ahead. Good luck to anyone currently holding shares!
I am not too concerned with ONCS maintaining the required minimum share price of $1.00 once it is listed on a national exchange. I am concerned with ONCS being able to get above the minimum required share price needed in order to do the actual up-list itself. I would love to see ONCS have a market cap of 500M +. I believe the science gives it that potential (and much more), but am not convinced it can get there while still on the OTC with 244M shares outstanding. That is why I brought up these questions and wondered what management had guided on this in the past. Hope I am wrong.
No, I meant $2. Why is it too early to think about up-listing? They are at the end of Phase II, cash in the bank, no debt, have shareholder equity, and a promising product. They couldn't be more ready to do it in my opinion. They are absolutely in position to do a reverse spilt as well. As long as they continue to report more positive data and overall good news, a reverse split would be no big deal, in my opinion. Reverse splitting is a problem for companies who do it to avoid being delisted. Not when they are doing it in order to up-list. Besides, at the current share price, they could do it at a very small and harmless ratio (1:10). If they can get over $2 organically, then great. But if they continue you to pump out stellar news, and the share price continues to hover in the $.50-.$1.00 range, then I hope they consider doing it. I have followed a few companies who have r/s in order to up-list, and it was not a disaster, as many predicted. The share price remained stable and even jumped significantly in some cases. I would expect something similar for ONCS if they went this route.
The fact of the matter is, we want big institutions to buy chunks of this company. Most cannot do this while a company is listed on the OTC.
Thanks for the quote, that is very helpful. A couple of comments though on this quote. Which exchange is Dhillion referring to when he states "$1.00"? While a company needs to maintain a share price of over $1.00 to remain listed, both the Nasdaq and NYSE have a minimum share price requirement to actually initiate the up-list. For the lowest tier NYSE (NYSEMKTS) it is $3.00. The Nasdaq used to be higher, but they lowered the requirement to $2.00 in 2012 to compete with NYSE and AMEX. So I am not sure how Dhillon plans to up-list at a $1.00 share price, it needs to be at least a dollar higher, and that is much more difficult to do in my opinion. That would be around a $500M market cap, and while I would love to see that happen, we'd have to have some extremely good news followed by some major buying.
Another point is about reducing the number of shares. 244M+ o/s currently is not a crazy high amount, but it is high. When Dhillion said the above quote, the o/s share count was at 88M, which is a much more reasonable amount. I am wondering if he still feels hesitant about reducing the amount of shares at this time, as I don't think it would be the end of the world if that number did come down a little.
Right, which is why I am surprised that we haven't heard more from the company directly regarding their desire to up-list. If they can do it organically great, but assuming they can meet the $2 absolute minimum requirement for the lowest Nasdaq tier is difficult enough. Being able to maintain it through the transition is another. Which is why I think if they are planning on up-listing to the Nasdaq that they should be targeting at least a $4 share price. Even if they needed to reverse split to do it, in my opinion. Regardless, they need to get off the OTC.
Got it, thanks. It's a shame to see them waste all of these upcoming milestones while being stuck on the OTC. Asking to get to a $2 share prove and maintain it through an up-list transition is asking a lot. Even though there is a $2 minimum requirement for the lowest Nasdaq tier, it would be nice if they had a bit of a buffer.
Thanks. Can you elaborate any more or tell me where I can read up on it myself? I don't see anything in the filings. Thanks.
Wishful thinking? I am all for tempering expectations when a thesis and hypothesis are being based on guesses pulled out of thin air. This a lot different though. The company has been guiding for quite some time now that the Phase IIb trial will commence by years' end 2014. Shareholders have been told to expect this. If it doesn't happen by the end of the year, Dhillon will have some explaining to do as to why he led investors, including those he has addressed so far at Rodman & Renshaw and Aegis, to believe it would happen this year and it didn't.
I always try to keep an open mind that things may not happen as planned. Maybe Phase IIb won't commence on time and the announcement of the partner along with it, but it is not wishful thinking for shareholders to expect what they have been told by the company.
I don't think there was really ever a question as to whether or not they were going to partner with anyone. The question is, as some have mentioned, if it come with cash upfront or not. I am feeling 50/50 at this point. It could very well be structured like the recent ADVX deals where, ONCS has to foot the bill for the trial and zero up front cash. Either way, it is a big deal in my opinion though, and depending on the partner, at the very least should really give some credibility to ONCS' scientific approach.