That's a tough one on the surface, it may be a good trading stock.
I love energy stocks and a growth strategy, but I prefer natural gas given it's expansion in the US and it's technology already exists for heating, cooling, cars, etc. CNG and LNG cars are our future and natual gas will explode, potentially pushing down oil itself.
OF the one's I don't own yet and for growth, I'm looking at in the US:
AUO BSQR CBZ LYTS PEIX TRR
As a chemist, I look at the ingredients for fracking and think they're doing chemistry on a global scale, they don't want to release the details as "trade secrets" and thus don't patent because research is not cheap and patent life would not cover it.
For example, The process is serpentinization which is an inorganic ingredient process that produces natural gas from CO2 and water.
Their process boosts the yields of natural gas:
They say they use alkylammonium salts to kill bacteria but I recognize that as a phase tranfer catalyst that can concentrate CO2 which they inject.
They say "sand" for homogenatity but I know they're big into synthetic zeolites (sand) which is used to combine methane into longer chains like propane at the pressures at the depths that they are working at.
They cycle between acids and bases, likely to regenerate the required minerals that are converted in the process.
Thus, they are recycling CO2 already. We just need to capture it from industrial process to inject back into the ground to produce gas.
The oil companies want the carbon tax becuase it'll tax those collecting CO2 while the oil company gets the tax credit for injecting into the ground to increase yields on a global chemistry effort which will boost profits.
Natural gas as an investment strategy is going to pay off.
cMet upregulation occurs when the vasculature is cut off and the cells experience hypoxia. Any drug could potentially do that by first attacking the cells it can reach first, Nivo would not be an exception and can cause cMet upregulation in the same manner since it's not VEGF dependent but rather a natural response to hypoxia.
Clearly, you don't understand the science. One is a protein and the other is a small molecule. One is a PD-1 inhibitor and the other targets the VEGF pathway. Not all drugs work in every situation and there are progressions of treatment. That means since the two drugs are of a different class and have different targets, BMY will not affect the approval of Cabo for mRCC at all.
Aside from that the P2 clinical trial of the Nivo post VEGF treatment is promising. Assuming Cabo produces better VEGF treatment prior too Nivo, it could actually take revenue away from Nivo, in some cases.
So, clearly you've not done your homework.
If Everolimus had a 5.4 month PFS, HR, 0.32; 95%confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.43; P .001 in a previous study (RECORD1)  with one previous VEGF TKI in mRCC; what do the numbers provided allow us to infer?
They reported Cabo to be 42% vs Everolimus of HR=0.58, 95 percent CI 0.45 - 0.75, p 0.0001
Pretty solid p value. The confidence range is larger though. Looking at the chart  from MotzerJ, et al. Cancer 2010; 116 4256-65. It looks like 7-8 months PFS is what we can expect (0.5/1.42 = 0.35 then reference chart). However, everolimus levels off about 0.3 but I'm targeting 7-8 months.
Not out of the ballpark but respectable increase.
 Eur J Cancer. 2012 Feb;48(3):333-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.027. Epub 2011 Dec 30
Asia (Japan) has to do their own trials due to the higher exposure rates in the Asian population that came out of the trial. It's a while off for Asia .
Your paper linked is for Nivolumab post VEGF treatment. The Checkmate 025 that was just reported was forprior anti-angiogenic therapy. Thus not directly relevant to today's news.
However, if the Nivolumab is to be administered post VEGF treatment, Cabo might take away from nivolumab's potential. Most are assuming the big pharma wins simply because it's big pharma; post VEGF Nivolumab might be the best.
Either way, the patients won a battle today.
They still have the buildings. Only one is rented out to tenants. As they build up to a couple hundred million pouring in per year, they could start hiring again.
How anemic did Gilead get?
Why wouldn't they wait for CELESTIAL before selling out? I want this to be the next Gilead or Genetech before cashing out. I would love it if all I had to do is keep the shares I have and know that my retirement is taken care of many times over.
They both are designed to allow apoptosis of the cell but the targets are different as well as being completely different classes of drug.
Thus the key differnces:
Nivolumab is an antibody whereas Cabo is a small molecule.
Nivolumab targets PD-1 whereas Cabo targets cMET and VEGFR.