i'm with you - and i've been holding over a year on this one (bought in Jan and Feb of last year). I'm not too enthusiastic about the ibrutinib + 1101 phase III trial but am very confident in all their other clinical trials
i agree - the safety story is strong. But ibrutinib is viewed as "safe enough". Also, i'm focusing on the ibrutinib + 1101 trial. I didn't address the 1101 + 1202 trials - this may actually achieve comparable efficacy to ibrutinib mono or ibrutinib in combination with 1101. And if it does - then TGTX will do great. Plus there is the triple combo which could continue to show efficacy in ibrutinib refractory patients - which again would be huge.
Not much to report - TGTX has done a deal with Ligand (another biotech) to add two IRAK4 compounds to TGTX's pipeline. Early data - preclinical (ie, in test tubes - not actual patients) - show the compounds are quite active and potentially useful in combination with TGTX's TGR-1202 which is in the clinic already. This is very early data - hence the lack of reaction by the market
i think today's weakness may stem from Pharmacyclics data just released related to naive and relapsed CLL patients being treated with ibrutinib and showing a very high overall response rate (ORR). This brings into question whether TGTX's phase III study of ibrutinib + TG-1101 in r/r CLL patients can show a meaningful benefit overall ibrutinib monotherapy - or, if there is a benefit, is it limited to a very select group of patients. I'm long TGTX - so would appreciate thoughts of others.
This patent relates to VBLT's inflammation program - specifically it relates to VB-201 - which doesn't hold much value at this point. The value for VBLT rests on VB-111.
and I bet you have a huge investment position here - so you are definitely not a piker. ha ha my guess is you have 10 or 20K tied up and think that's just huge
a "piker" is defined as a gambler who only makes small bets - so it applies to both longs and shorts. I think what you mean is "you know it is a long piker". Right? I know you like semantic debates like this.
if you go into level II you can see the action. when volume dries up, the waiting bids span a big range with a few at the current trade price then bottom fishers at much, much lower prices. the buyers are basically holding off for the most part until, among other things, they see a more stable bottom
you are probably right - or at least roughly right in that it could bounce around where we are for a while
he's just short and is trying to get as much out of that before he covers
hate to say it but you probably bought too early, it hasn't gone up in several days so best to wait until a bottom is put in - not there yet.
i have seen this happen before. Basically, VBLT releases promising data - even includes a solid p value - but there are questions, such as the number of patients in each arm do not match exactly what was released in December, the statistical significance methodology has changed, they release overall survival data but not other data such as progression free survival, why was the OS data released in March different from the OS numbers released in December, it seems that only 46 patients are reflected in the data - same as December - haven't they recruited more, and so on. These are somewhat obvious questions, but the management didn't proactively address them - they just left the market guessing and alluded to more being released in association with ASCO (which i take to mean they will present at ASCO but i am not exactly sure). If VBLT management has legitimate answers to these questions, the stock should and would rebound - but until then the market is assuming they are being "slick"
i don't think it was fake - the issue is whether subtle manipulation is in play because the management has not pulled back the curtain on the data so that everyone can carefully inspect. Instead they provide carefully worded, periodic releases. If you wish to hold, your best bet is to wait until ASCO but that is assuming that their abstract will be accepted by ASCO. On the plus side, when they have published in a scientific setting, in either a journal or conference, they have included among the authors colleagues from the US clinical sites which include Duke University and other reputable sites. i don't think such US groups will engage in any manipulation - so if you see them on a publication, then you'll know it's legit.