Despite what my good friend semansaru attributes this decline today (company suxx), the fact is in the recent days there has been a whole bunch of noise and articles about a biotech bubble, overheated, etc.etc. I follow some 20 or more biotechs and they are ALL down today, with exception of two. Most under 2%. So maybe EXEL does suck, but that's not why its down today. It was a funny comment nonetheless. He's consistent if nothing else.
Isn't this yet another example (Comet-1) being one and Medullary the other, of Cabo significantly increasing PFS? Doesn't that bode well for Meteor? What am I missing?
I'm not sure what you mean by 'sounds like a trap'. Trap who or what? And for what purpose? I'm simply trying to determine/understand the likelihood or unlikelihood of a Meteor success. Biotech, the science, and the testing, etc. can be confusing for an average investor. Answers to these questions would help ME. I'm not if they's help anyone else, and I'm sure there are more questions to ask, and maybe I'm asking the wrong questions. You answered question 8, thank you.. At a minimum, I'd love to get answers to 3, 5 thru 7. I'm kinda surprised no one else chimed in.
Homeslice, Great opinion, (I like the lack of personal attacks) and you may be right in the end, as it is you by far who has the best track record here. Anyone deny that and they are kidding themselves. But no doubt all your antagonists here have a much longer horizon than you. But in this opinion expressed here, it would be a long view, pretty pessimistic but long nonetheless But for sure, those with the long optimistic views are patient (perhaps to a fault) and are looking for future events to validate their opinions and make them money of course (that's what 'being long' is after all).. So a question for you, I know you have already expressed your opinion that Meteor will fail.
But how do things change if its successful, including PPS, and Roche, et. al. What's your opinion if that unlikely outcome? Be honest.
I and I'm sure others are confused when it comes to understanding the likelihood or unlikelihood of a successful Meteor Trial. Answers to the following questions, would help my understanding. To the extent possible, I phrase them to be answered with one word answers. Trying to net it out, keep it simple. Asking those who respond to keep it short an simple as well. Thanks Homeys!
1. Cabo failed in Comet trial because the the Primary Endpoint, OS, was poor relative to placebo. True or False?
2. The patient population was a very sick population, having taken other cancer therapies/drugs previously that were of little help. True or False?
3. However, PFS in the Comet trial was good. True or False? Can you quantify good?
4. The Meteor trial Endpoint for Cabo is PFS. True or False?
5. The results in phase 1 and 2 of Meteor were positive. How good (can you quantify?)
6. Cabo's chances in the phase 3 Meteor trial for a very positive result are very good because:
a. RCC will respond better than CrPC (it's 'easier'). True or false?
b. PFS is a lower bar to hurdle than OS. True or False?
7. There are other RCC drugs on the market today that already address PFS. For Cabo to truly be considered a success, it would have to show a PFS of at least ______________ months (fill in the blank).
8. The longer the time to report the findings of Meteor the better it is, as it would indicate longer PFS and/or a successful trial. True or False?
BTW, i saw the same thing, so you are not dreaming. And wasn't is just a week or so back where we saw another long goodbye from Wilder, explaining how he was going to do sheep herding or something? Just to re-appear with no explanation a few days later? Maybe Wilder gets hammered and PUI (Posts Under the Influence). In any event I hope he stays.
Frankly, emansaru and wilder just antagonize each other to death, and i gets tiresome. Full disclosure, you can likely find me guilty of the same in the past. But these two take it to new levels. They both have something to contribute and if they can, and the rest here, would simply leave out the rhetoric and the personal attacks, if they could state opinions without being attacked for it, the entire board would be better off. Otherwise, put them on ignore if you really don't want to hear from them. I especially like Wilder's post as they come form a LONG view steeped in the science. Emanasaru on the other hand is a trader with a short term (and SHORT) bias. These two may as well debate religion with each other.. Makes no sense, why subject us to it? You can learn from both, I don't want to put them on ignore.
Not going short but have have a sht load of stop limits trying to limit further downside, not far from where it is now. I'm underwater but, unlike you and perhaps a few others, I believe there is a reasonable chance, better than reasonable chance, that METEOR will be successful. Primarily because the primary endpoint is PFS. Its hard to argue against that considering the PFS success shown in Phase 1 and 2, combined with the PFS shown in COMET. You see that right? And for that reason after being long for sometime, then go short only to see a successful test, I'll want to stick a sharp stick in my eye to relieve the pain, or maybe spend an evening with Wilder talking off label uses of Cabo, or maybe worse, reviewing technical charts with you! God please help me.
On 3/2 Thomson Reuters/Verus downgraded EXEL from HOLD to SELL.. 15 days later they upgrade EXEL from SELL to HOLD.
On 2/27 McLean Capital Management dropped coverage for EXEL. Just seven (7) days later, they re-initiate coverage with neutral recommendation.
Some explain that to me.....
I agree. You stated your opinion absent any personal attacks, so this reply is simply uncalled for. No one has to like your opinion. nothing wrong with disagreement, but gees...
" I am a bit puzzled by OS as a secondary endpoint, and if anything it will hurt the chances of approval if the PFS data is positive."
How does positive PFS data hurt the chances of approval? I'm not following that..
" And positive OS would just be a very nice bonus, although I doubt it will be positive. "
I asked this of Social within the same thread below. I'm asking how a drug can be approved if the OS is negative, even though the PFS could be positive.
You mentioned that although PFS was a primary end point tivoanib was rejected because OS 'fell slightly'. I'm not as smart as all you guys when it comes to these things, but logically when i read that I say that kinda makes sense. Though OS is secondary endpoint, wouldn't be a given that it has to at least hold the base line? If OS declines, what's the point? Or am I missing something? Thanks.
By far the best dialogue on this board in months! Congratulations to all for the civility, the information, and for not taking personal offense if someone disagrees. This is how we all learn. Really terrific. I'm proud of all of my babies!
KITE earnings release for 3Q 2014 was November 14th, or 6 weeks after the close of Q3. Hard to believe they are not out yet. Q2 2015 almost here and they haven't yet reported Q4 2014.