I still own both SGEN and SRPT. Regarding Adam F if you look at his last 11 articles on biotech companies 9 are clearly negative and I would say that is his typical ratio. I was a relatively large for me holder of Medarex which was taken over by BMY and is the reason B has Yervoy and PD1 both assets of Med. Well Adam for years said Yervoy would never work wrote numerous neg articles on Med up until of course it did have a successful phase3 after the BMY takeover . So AF makes a living by saying almost anything that isn't completely proved will fail and with that approach he and anyone else will have a decent batting average since most new approaches fail. One of his few positives is SRPT which I'm long and actually that worries me a little.
I first saw this symbol which stands for Immuno Oncology a couple of months ago in a Goldman Sachs report upgrading Bristol Myers and projecting a new order in Oncology Treatment with a 7 to 10 bil estimate of PD1 sales. Now IO has become the normal symbol in report after report which stands for any treatment which claims to attempt to use ones own Immune system to treat their cancer. The most popular because of the success of Yervoy / Ipilimumab / CTLA-4 1 bil sales and PD1 next expected approval are the checkpoint inhibitors. What's added to the excitement is the concept that using multiple checkpoints inhibitors increases there effectiveness (IDO ).The other IO group consists of the Cancer Vaccines the biggest approval in this group Provenge DNDN which has been a bust and therefore the street gives very little credit to any other Cancer Vaccines at this time. When and if there is a success in this group / HyperAcute that perception will change.
"Given significant investor interest in immuno-oncology (I-O), the Credit Suisse Healthcare Team is hosting a series of conference calls with senior management from several companies active in the space, the first one being MacroGenics (MGNX), on Friday, Mar 14th from 1-2 PM Eastern. Upcoming participants in the I-O conference call series include Peregrine Pharmaceuticals (PPHM), Innate Pharma (IPH-FR) and NewLink Genetics (NLNK). Speakers on the upcoming MGNX call will be Jon Wigginton, MD (SVP, Clinical Development) and Jim Karrels (CFO). Below we provide a brief overview of MGNX's I-O agent (MGA271) and touch on their other pipeline programs."
Mew , I don't think NewLink has any interest in selling the Company . If you listen to the CC or read the transcript on Seeking Alpha , Dr. Link makes it clear that any partnership in the IDO platform must include NLNK's full scientific , clinical ,& financial participation. For me this sounds like a plan of a company that plans to exist and grow for the future . I also don't get the impression that Link & Stine have any plans to sell the company and because of their stock holdings and Dr. Links scientific value to the company that without their agreement it would be very hard if not impossible to sell the company!
Actually they have said all a long that they wanted to partner the IDO platform ! What this deal shows is the markets valuation of a Checkpoint Platform that is two to three years behind NewLinks platform in Clinical development ! I don't think the first interim results has any barring on the timing they have started 4 new IDO trials since the beginning of the year and the development costs are going up.
Toad , my opinion is not based on a spreadsheet . First I'm not qualified to do it and in my opinion there are far to many guess's that have to be correct so being accurate would be pure luck. What I focus on is that the more than half of the patients have been in the trial less than two years and not enough of the patients have had the treatment long enough for these initial #s to mean much and we don't know if they were close to a stop or far. And when we hit the next interim we will probably have only about half at two years or more. Now in the phase 2 it was at about 30 months that the KM curve flattens . Since I don't have any reason to think the curve will flatten in the control arm that's when the separation will increase and so if like in the phase2 the curve flattens at 30 months and we have a larger and larger % entering this space IMHO we will succeed in the 2nd interim or final either one.
This AM a deal between Tesaro (TSRO) an oncology-focused biotech and AnaptysBio a private biotech . TSRO was granted exclusive rights to three Checkpoint inhibitors (same space as IDO) expected to enter clinical trials in 18 to 24 months well behind IDO . TSRO paid $17 mil upfront and potentially $18 mil for each of the three as they reach certain milestones + tiered single digit royalties for worldwide sales . TSRO solely responsible for all clinical development , manufacturing, regulatory and commercial activities . TSRO is up 300mil or 31% in market cap today. This is not a deal that NLNK would do based on their guidance at the CC , however it gives you an idea what the market values a much earlier stage Checkpoint Inhibitor tech at.
Our business development strategy for this platform is to secure a global co-development partner in the near term. We believe the best partner for NewLink is one that supports our long-term business strategy. Therefore while it is important for this partnership to bring extensive resources for development and commercialization, it is critical that NewLink will continue to contribute scientifically, financially and strategically to the joint development planned going forward.
Your EGO is enormous that's your problem ! Clearly bad news Analyst has a Problem ! Don't you get it I think they're a lot smarter than you , and they and I came away with a very positive impression of the CC. Sorry you are unable to accept that and I assure you it's not a religious belief for me or them , they believe as I do that ultimately these platforms will benefit patients . The first Interim was not expected to be a success by them and they were right they and I expect the trial to be successful either at the second interim or trial end and you don't I think that's it.
Sorry that you now think that me passing on what Cantor, Jeffries , & Stifel Analysts opinion is a Religious Belief . That's really silly but what I do believe is each and every one of them is more qualified to give an opinion on this company than you. It seems to me you have a huge ego and go into torturous detail to show you are right and anyone who disagrees is obviously wrong stupid or a #$%$. That being said NLNK's platforms could fail based on my DD I think that's unlikely but you in my opinion are way over the edge with your conspiracy theory analysis
One of your main arguments has to do with the 24 mos in the phase2 never mentioning that 2/3rds of that sample is the low dose and therefore has little or no relevance to the phase3 . At least nlnk thinks so or they would have used the low dose in the phase 3, and no mention by you that lengthening the dose from 6 months to one year may also make a difference. Also in Immunotherapy and the phase 2 the KM curve flattens at +2 years and that's when in IO you would expect separation to increase and at this point it is a relatively small% of patients in that category!
Irisk , You probably wrote your CC comments before the call since you didn't hear anything that was said in fact you never listen to or consider any opinions that don't line up with yours. Oh if you don't agree with the answers what a surprise. Same weak arguments over and over again , I guess we'll have to endure your arguments until we get results , how boring .
Cap, First I don't trade in an out of my long positions , although after the fact it often seems like a good idea. It just isn't something I'm comfortable with. Before the first interim I believed it was 50 50 but I also believed the downside was 25% and the upside was + 100% so I didn't consider trading. I did a lot of DD on VICL and never felt comfortable even though I read many positive reports . I do a lot of DD before I make a buy an I pass on most . Regarding the first interim my 50 50 thinking was based on the phase 2 data regarding the one year survival at the high dose which was computed on a very small # of patients . As it turned out the analyst's who consistently said that the first interim was at 45% a bar to high where correct. As I've said before in IO when successful the difference from Chemo becomes clear over time. Patients in the control arm alive at 2 years are probably dead at three years . Patients in treatment arm if the is as I think successful IO will likely be alive at three, four years and more . With Yervoy the have some patients alive at ten years after treatment who without that treatment would certainly be dead. This trial didn't become fully enrolled until Sept 2013 at that point they were enrolling 25 a month so even though we have reached half the required deaths more than half the patients have been in the trial 18 months down to 5 months, No guarantee's just my opinion.
1. Long term 5 year data from phase 2 post surgical Panc c trial at ASCO with break out according to dose! 2. IDO partnership my preference would be BMY since they are the leader in IO Immunotherapy Oncology . 3. New Data from the HyperAcute Lung C trial. at ASCO. 5. Data from the IDO breast cancer trial ASCO.