You're the one not making any sense. Don't gloss over points with verbose rhetoric, pinpoint and clarify exactly what it is you're refuting.
VGX3100 is designed as a therapeutic vaccine, not a prophylactic one. It clears the virus and kills the cells infected by the virus. To kill the cells causing the lesion you need a strong T-cell response, otherwise Gardasil and Cervarix, which are antibody response preventative vaccines, would be sufficient. A strong T-cell response is absolutely necessary and critical to clear the lesions.
Obviously you have some technical proficiency, but you are clearly trying to mislead. That's worse than someone with good intentions without the proficiency.
Even if it were the case that your "needle-free" injection device works, it would still need to clear clinical trials in use with DNA vaccines. And lead times of even just a year or two can make all the difference. But I'm just talking hypothetical as most know it wouldn't work.
Getting any drug approved is only the first step. Executing properly to introduce a commercially successful product requires deep proficiency, and I'll bet Drs. Kim and Weiner and the rest of the team at INO will do a much better job than someone like you or the mgmt at Pharmajet, who mostly only have bachelors in MechE (including the chief tech officer) with MBA's and finance backgrounds. And you think they're capable enough to turn their needle-free injector needle into a pDNA delivery device?? LOL, what a freaking joke.
The last time I checked, teams of PhD's and experts in the field still don't get it right 100%, in fact not even close. That includes you, and that includes the world renown team at INO. So don't pretend to know the outcome of clinical trials and FDA responses as no one is smart enough to predict it with absolute certainty.
Are you really comparing a "needle-free" injection device vs an electroporation system? The needle free injector inserts the material into the body without cellular uptake, and thus what's encoded in the DNA plasmid can't be expressed. Viral vectors have improved and have reduced unwanted immune response to the vector, but it's still not zero and repeat dosing is still an issue.
There is nothing like electroporation to delivery DNA plasmids, both for efficacy and safety. And INO controls over 70% of the patents in the field related to its use with DNA plasmid vaccines and the actual device design for maximum efficacy and ease of compliance.
Absolute baloney. Regression rates as high as 49% usually include patients who are NOT infected with HPV, and they also include ALL HPV infected patients. HPV16 and HPV18 are the culprits in causing cancer in the majority of cases and have the lowest regression rates.
And as anyone who has done any research in INO knows, VGX3100 is designed for patients infected with either HPV16 or HPV18. They are the most difficult patients to treat and most likely to progress into cancer. Their historical spontaneous regression rates are in the 20's% range, LOWER than what the placebo group saw in INO's Ph2 trial.
MF is either ignorant or manipulative. Maybe a bit of both.
I'm a pretty conservative investor, but I have to agree w/ NBTS here... Inovio is undervalued NOW and should be trading at a much higher valuation. As an option, given the current human data and partnerships validations, the likelihood of INO's Syncon+EP being a legitimate, viable platform has increased, but the stock price has lagged - both in historical (self) and relative (biotech index) terms.
EV is only $500M. The potential of INO supporting a high multi-billion $ EV (or MC) has increased significantly (and very non-trivial), but the mkt is only pricing in an unlikelihood of success (1 in 10 for $5B EV, 1 in 20 for $10B EV, etc). I'm ignoring time value of money & dilution with the example #'s, but the general argument still holds.
It shouldn't be too long b4 a radical adjustment in price, very much like the one that we saw in '13.
Does anyone want to take advice from someone who can't even do simple math? From 500K to 2M is a 300% increase, not 400%.
A significant drop in price on large volume indicates an absence of liquidity. It may or may not be preceded by a news event.
Your facts aren't really facts.
Doctor? LOL I guess we can be anything we want on the internet behind a facade.
Your original post was full of errors or lies... take your pick. I refuted every point that you made but you seem to want to just claim being a doc and just gloss over the details. Doctors don't talk like you. They are much more meticulous and knowledgeable, which you clearly are not.
You made the claim "any company can do the same without violating any patent"... that is an utter ridiculous statement. So qualify and explain how and why that makes sense without being general.
You also shouldn't directly compare a cancer vaccine with a antiviral HepC drug. Sovaldi and Harvoni are breakthrough drugs, one because of improved SVR & shortened treatment and the other because of even shorter treatment duration and elimination of interferon. VGX-3100 would also be a breakthrough drug if approved, because there is NO current treatment available for cervical dysplasia except surgery. Just because response rates were not 95% doesn't mean that it's not a breakthrough. And VGX-3100 is only a 1st generation vaccine for INO... follow on candidates with adjuvants, antibodies, enhanced EP, etc, will improve the results just as it did for Sovaldi and Harvoni for HepC.
You are not a doctor. You're not even smart enough to play one on YMBs.
You (chc1) should stop talking out of your a--.
There's plenty of companies working on DNA vaccines, but INO's SynCon DNA + EP has shown to generate robust activated killer T-cells better than ANY other DNA platform tested to date... sometimes by more than 100X. So that means change ONE gene sequence and it won't work like INO's SynCon. And this is the KEY - change ANYTHING and you need to run a complete set of new clinical trials.
There's also many forms of delivery platforms for DNA vaccines, including the gene gun (PFE) and viral vectors. Nothing comes even CLOSE to the safety and efficacy of EP... and INO controls 70 - 80% of the patents on EP and EP devices. Only real competition for INO on EP is Ichor, but their tests to date have not yielded the same dramatic results that INO has produced.
Your post is also illogical. If INO's technology is flawed, why did you invest in the first place? Oh I know, you didn't have a position to begin with.
I agree w/ your general premise except that the mkt has given LINE a 7% yield before (2.9/40 = 7.25%). Especially given the interest rate race down to zero worldwide, if oil climbs high enough I think it can get there again. A lot of things have to "line" up before then, but that implies a ceiling of $17.50 or so.