Thx dub. FYI, the squalamine part of the audio starts at 16:56. I know, picky picky, lol.
1) Dr Singerman said squalamine does not inhibit eNOS, unlike Avastin and the chronic anti-VEGF agents, and that is important because it is felt by many investigators that this may play a role in the GA that they're seeing in patients w/ chronic anti-VEGF therapy and hence the ultimate vision their patients are achieving. So the "L10 Pathway Problem Avoidance" gets a mention.
2) Look at the three "Study Patient With CNV" pictures in the article and the description below them. It says a masked, placebo'ed trial in combo w/ Lucentis. Regression of CNV w/ no need for a second Lucentis shot one month later. These things can be consistent w/ the Ph II squalamine trial. And in the article proper, the only mention of placebo is in the section on squalamine. Inconclusive, but highly suggestive that Dr SIngerman might be talking about the current squalamine trial.
3) My subjective observation of what Dr Singerman chose to talk about: out of the many wet AMD drugs in trial, he spoke only about Fovista and squalamine, and spent more time on the later. Maybe here nor there, but seems to me that squalamine is working it's way up the attention ladder.
I didn't realize how far south Dana Pt is. Good. That means there was probably investment managers and wealthy individual investors there from both the LA and San Diego areas. Not a trivial amt of money run there.
I don't think Ohr sees these investor conference presentations as an avenue to introduce new info, I think they see them as a way to try to interest new prospective investors. Vista said the Ohr's presentation at the recent conf in SF was to a lot of new prospective investors. A lot of folks there had not seen Ohr speak before. Standing room only, too, and given how the stock behaved afterwards, I'd say their attempt to reach new investors worked very well.
Yesterday's presentation in the LA area was likewise a good move. Another area, I think, that hasn't seen Ohr speak much (if at all). Therefore, new money.
ISTM that Dr Singerman would be backing away from squalamine if his results were anything but good. Not a definitive sign by any means, but it seems reasonable that he knows enough about what happened to his patients already, as L10 has argued, to make a decision about his level of public profile and the wording he chooses. Why be associated with a failure? Why continue to use words that can be described as supportive? Not at all sure if that's how this would play out, but human nature is human nature.
I wish they would have been clear. My first reaction was they were talking about the rabbit studies. But can't tell for sure. Did they participate in the rabbit studies?
Worst case, we'll have our answers soon, w/ the Ph II results.
Yes, they were two 'almost' rhetorical Q's. The trial design, as I read it, does not mention once-daily dosing nor a way to determine therapeutic levels other than thru the stated outcome measures. If true, this is a biggie and is still largely under the radar, publicly, it seems.
ISTM that the once and twice daily comments also were intended to imply that the practical world results, where a patient may miss a dose or miss the eye or have it tear out, were excellent. There is a real-world patient buffer built in. That was one of the former concerns expressed here by a doctor.
Welcome on board, L10. ;^)
Those two sentences beg a couple Q's:
--How did they find out that therapeutic levels were reached?
--How did they find out that it was reached w/ once-daily dosing?
ROFLMA. Sell!! Dr SIngerman's peer-reviewed article was not only fake, but the fakiness was missed by the all the other doctors! Dr Elman's results were fake! Dr Katz' overwhelmingly positive comments were fake! Bob lied! The IV studies never existed! The rabbits done died! Insiders have been secretly selling somehow! The stock is actually at 5 cents, it's just that your broker's data feed has been hijacked! There is no Phase II! Squalamine doesn't even exist! The Mayans were right! The world already ended! Sell, sell sell!
Not sure where "once-daily dosing" results came from, so I'm guessing that they're talking about the rabbit studies?? Weird that they mention IV studies in which they also participated. I assume those were human? Confusing.
The article says, "Peer Reviewed", which is good, and here are the article's authors:
LLEWELYN J. RAO, MD • JOSEPH M. CONEY, MD • JEROME P. SCHARTMAN, MD • LAWRENCE J. SINGERMAN, MD
Notice that last guy. rxonman reported that Dr Singerman mumbled some important, positive words at the end of his pres last month. Looks like this validates that, and more.
Wait til L10 reads this. Not sure how they got their info, but this appears to be further evidence that squalamine works well. At least, if that's what "reaches therapeutic levels" means.
The note "28" refers to Ohr's website. He's what the website says:
"Preclinical studies have demonstrated that squalamine eyes drops are safe and that squalamine can reach the back of the eye at concentrations that are known to inhibit neovascularization in tissue. The studies also support a twice-daily dosing structure based on the retention characteristics of squalamine in posterior ocular tissues. Twice daily eye drop administration is a convenient and patient-friendly dosing structure that can allow Ohr to achieve the goal of improving patient care and patient outcomes."
The Retinal Physician article goes on to say, though:
" Importantly, in contrast to earlier intravenous studies of this drug, in which we also participated, topical administration reaches therapeutic levels on once-daily dosing.
With twice-daily dosing, this level is safely exceeded, and the possibility of incomplete administration of the drops minimized..."
as noted by dubl2dz.
Interesting, how can the author's make those stmts? If they can back that up, that would be huge. Another trial results leak, maybe? Seems like I got to be missing something.
Shouldn't be worried at all. How much better can acuity get? Just happens that the first patient had good visual acuity already.
I think owning the options is a good approach, especially for those with more limited buying resources. Given the binary nature of the upcoming outcome, the stk is effectively a call option itself. Heavily in the money and long dated, for sure, but still an option. Usually the option spreads are nasty-wide, but even then, if one thinks we go a lot higher w/ Ph ii before July 19, seems like a reasonable approach. One could argue even better than owning the stk.
Some of them almost certainly are covering. I hope not all, though, as it's high-octane fuel for future run-ups.
The shorts were crazy to short this stock. Multiple strong signs that Ph II will be a success for a stock supply-constrained company in a hot sector. For the continued non-believers, staying on the sidelines makes sense, but to actually short it is irresponsible. They're already learning a tough lesson.
Looks like a bit of a wall at $16.50. Would be fun to knock that over. If not today, then next week. Seen other walls recently topple, like the 80k shares offered back at 10.50.