Become a Member

“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug”

Biotech Supertrader teases that "This May be the Most Radical Advance in Medicine in the Last 100 Years"

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, January 8, 2014

Robert Morris is helming a biotech-focused stock newsletter that’s called Biotech Supertrader (modesty has no place in the world of newsletter promotions, of course), and I’ve never covered this letter before so I thought I ought to have a look at the latest teaser we’ve been asked about.

Morris, incidentally, has been featured in our pages before — but that was back when he was editor of China Stock Insider at the same publisher. That letter, like almost all China-focused investment newsletters, seems to have disappeared quietly into that good night … which probably tells you that it’s time to invest in China again, since the newsletter publishers are ignoring the Middle Kingdom and rushing out their pitches about biotech and tech stocks. At the time, Morris was teasing NQ Mobile (NQ), which has turned out to be pretty good if you bought it down there in the $6-8 neighborhood (though it’s been a wild ride).

So now what’s he pitching for his Biotech Supertrader?

Well, the destruction of “Man’s deadliest disease”, of course. Here’s how the teaser gets our attention:

“This Tiny, Unknown Biotech is About to Unleash Its ‘Holy Grail’ Drug on Man’s Deadliest Disease

“Their ‘Guided Missile Approach’ Could Save Thousands of Lives Each Year

“It’s about to become the most talked about advancement in cancer treatment in our lifetimes and you can lock in a life-transforming fortune if you act quickly….

“I’m urging my subscribers to load up on this stock NOW….

“I’ve just uncovered a tiny, unknown biotechnology company with a new cancer drug in phase 3 clinical trials which is showing remarkable success at treating several types of cancer.

“Their scientists have found an innovative approach to cancer care which involves a breakthrough in treatment. It goes deep inside the inner workings of our cells.

“Plus, this medicine looks to be many times more effective and with fewer side effects than the chemo, radiation, and drug therapies currently available.”

If there’s one thing that investors know can make them rich and make them feel good about themselves and the world, it’s a cure for cancer — we’ve seen that effective cancer treatments can and do (occasionally) turn little biotech stocks into gigantic successes, so the dream lives on that you’re going to catch one of these lottery tickets and own the next Genentech. Will we be so lucky? Well, let’s see which one he’s pitching:

“When this drug wins FDA approval – which I believe it will – this small company’s $4.16 stock price will go straight to the moon.

“And the market for this drug is absolutely huge!

“You see, this small biotech is targeting its new drug, let’s call it ‘drug S’, at cancers of the blood and bone marrow. And it is already in very promising phase 3 trials for these two types of cancer.

“But here’s where it gets really interesting. It looks like the drug this company is developing will also work on other types of cancer!

“There are positive signs it works on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) too. There are 1.1 million people with this type of malignancy. Just in the United States alone there are over 300,000 patients with this disease according to The American Cancer Society. Each desperate for a cure.

“Plus it looks like ‘drug S’ may turn out to be an effective treatment for ovarian Cancer. There are more than 204,000 new cases of ovarian cancer diagnosed worldwide each year with 22,280 of these in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute estimates.”

So … who is it? Thinkolator sez this is Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals (CYCC)

Cyclacel is indeed a little biotech around $4 (it closed at $4.35 yesterday), with a market capitalization of only about $80 million — so be careful, we’re a big enough group here that if just a small percentage of Stock Gumshoe readers got enthused about this stock it could drive the shares up, less than a million dollars worth of shares trade each day (Biotech Supertrader says they limited their readership to 750 people — I don’t know if that’s still their cap or if they’ve hit it, but we’ll have more folks than that reading this free article).

And like many biotech stocks, it’s got some impressive scientists and it’s been losing money for a long time as they’ve been searching for a viable drug (their current lead drug also was a big focus of theirs back when it was in Phase 1 trials five or more years ago, so that’s a good reminder of the time these things take, it’s just starting Phase 3 trials now). It looks like they must have gone public in 2004, when they were about eight years old, and a quick scan of ten years of their financials over at Morningstar indicates that they’ve never generated more than a token amount of revenue (meaning, they’ve probably had some research collaboration payments or partnership funding, but never got a product to market), and have accumulated more than $250 million in losses to date. And had two reverse splits to keep the price from sinking far into penny territory.

So that’s not unusual, but it means that — as with all developmental-stage biotechs — it’s not about the financials or the fundamentals, it’s about what’s going to happen in their clinical trials and whether things are going well enough that they can continue to finance the trials … which get much more expensive as you progress through Phase 2 and Phase 3.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


All I know about them so far is that they say they’ve got enough cash to get through enrollment in their key Phase 3 study for “drug S” (which is sapacitabine) as of September when they last updated their investor presentation, but I know nothing about the science or the competing cancer drugs that are out there or how fabulous this particular one might be, so I asked our favorite medical writer, Doc Gumshoe (who, yes, is not a doctor) to check them out quickly and chime in. Here’s what he could share after looking into them for a few minutes (he’s just looking at the medical stuff, not so much the “investor presentations”):

    Cyclacel’s Prospects

    Cyclacel has three drugs in development at this time, and is involved in eight clinical trials with these drugs, not including two clinical trials that have been terminated. Their top contender is sapacitabine which targets the division of cancer cells. If you can prevent cancer cells from dividing and reproducing, you have the cancer whipped, so targeting cancer cell division (or mitosis, which is the technical term) is a highly promising avenue for treating cancer. However, we need to take note of the fact that sapacitabine is one of a large number of drugs that propose to fight cancer by this method.

    At present, all eight of Cyclacel’s clinical trials involve sapacitabine. Of these, at least one has been completed – a Phase 1 study of the safety and pharmacology of the drug. Four others are current, with no information about results. These are likely Phase 1 or small Phase 2 studies, to assess safety, determine what a correct dose might be, and evaluate whether the drug does what it’s supposed to do in human subjects with the target diseases, which in this case include acute myeloid leukemia (AML), cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and some advanced solid tumors. Prior to the clinical trials, sapacitabine has demonstrated impressive results in delaying the spread of metastatic liver cancers in mice.

    From what I can gather from public sources (i.e., the NIH Clinical Trials Registry), there is one Phase 3 trial, which started recruiting patients in February of 2013 and is expected to be completed in late 2015. The trial is in elderly patients with AML, and compares alternating cycles of sapacitabine and decitabine with decitabine alone. Decitabine (Dacogen) is FDA-approved for treating AML and also targets cancer cells’ replication by attacking their DNA.

    It is possible that the Phase 3 trial by itself could lead to FDA approval for sapacitabine, depending on the strength of the results. However, that trial would not get the drug approved for use as monotherapy, since it is not being investigated as monotherapy. My guess is that Cyclacel is planning more trials of sapacitabine as monotherapy, perhaps in younger patients. And my further guess is that FDA approval is still quite a long way off.

    Sapacitabine is also in a Phase 3 trial with cyclophosphamide and rituximab for the treatment of relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cyclophosphamide (marketed under several trade names) is a well-established chemotherapy agent used in a number of cancers, and has led to remission in many cases; however, it is associated with truly harrowing adverse effects. Rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech) is used not only in cancers but in some autoimmune diseases. And sapacitabine is also being studied in patients with previously-treated non-small-cell lung cancers.

    Although the piece from Biotech Supertrader said that the drug – identified as “drug S” –is also a promising treatment for ovarian cancer, I find no clue that it is being studied in such patients. [ed note: that’s because that “promise” is in the lab still, not in people — they had a press release about this in the Fall, “75% of Ovarian Cancer Patient Samples Highly Sensitive to Sapacitabine”, not studied in patients but on patient samples]

    Cyclacel has two other drugs in development: selicilib and a drug designated as CYC116. One selicilib study has been terminated, and in a second Phase 1 study, selicilib is used with sapacitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors. Remember, however, that Phase 1 studies are many rungs of the ladder below what’s needed to gain FDA approval.

    CYC116 is an aurora kinase inhibitor, meaning that it blocks the action of an intracellular enzyme that facilitates cancer cell mitosis. This is a promising avenue of cancer treatment, however, the traffic on this avenue is fairly heavy, and includes several other classes of drugs including tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and taxol based agents such as paclitaxel (Taxol, Bristol Myers Squibb); docetaxel (Taxotere, Sanofi-Aventis), Abraxane (a newer formulation of paclitaxel from Celgene) and others.

    CYC116 supposedly also inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which induces the growth of blood vessels that nourish cancer cells. Inhibiting VEGF is a well-established means of combating cancer, and CYC116 could hardly be characterized as a radically new departure in cancer treatment.

    The one trial involving this agent has been terminated. That, of course, does not mean that development of CYC116 stops dead in its tracks – there are many reasons why a trial can be terminated, and ours is not to speculate without more information.

    Beyond those three drugs, it’s hard to guess what Cyclacel may have up its corporate sleeve. It is certainly true that a successful cancer drug – even if only moderately successful– can be transformational for the biotech that develops the drug. But the drugs that Cyclacel has under development do not appear to this skeptical observer to be radically new departures in cancer treatment.

    It’s important to remember, when trying to estimate the likelihood of a single drug demonstrating sufficient efficacy and safety to gain FDA approval and market share, that the competitive field is vast. As I mentioned earlier, Cyclacel has a total of 8 clinical trials in process at this time.

    For the sake of perspective, it’s worth knowing that at present there are 41,445 cancer trials being conducted. So those are the odds.

So there you have it — it’s almost impossible to find a development-stage biotech whose financials look great or that makes your heart go pit-a-pat over their valuation, especially in a biotech bull market like we’ve seen over the past year or so, and Cyclacel doesn’t jump out as spectacular on that front either, not unless you’re a big believer in the promise of their specific drug. They’re a small stock and they don’t get much attention, other than from the analysts who probably helped them sell shares in secondary offerings in recent years, and there aren’t any major “skin in the game” insiders as far as I can tell (the CEO owns $1 million worth of shares, but he gets paid more than that every year), and there’s only one really focused owner on the institutional side that seems to have any kind of biotech focus (Eastern Capital owns about 7% of the shares, roughly $5 million worth … don’t know much about them).

So I don’t see a lot to make them stand out other than Robert Morris’ apparent enthusiasm for the shares (which certainly goes over the top, he calls his special report “The End of Cancer Worries Forever“), and I don’t know enough about the science to be a believer (though, to be fair, I almost never speculate on developmental biotechs because they’re so hit-driven and I’m not smart enough to be a hit-picker in the sector). It is at least encouraging that they are enrolling patients for Phase 3, and that they probably won’t have to raise more money before they have some indication of how the trial is going, but sometime in the next year or two they’re probably going to have to either get good results from this trial that let them raise cash at a good price, or have promising enough results that some big pharma company wants to jump in and help fund development of “drug S” (or just buy up the whole company, as happens with some regularity when a little biotech gets promising results).

Oh, and they are presenting at an investor conference next week, so maybe they’ll have something interesting to share then. As you can tell, this one doesn’t jump into my cup of tea … but these kinds of stocks almost never do. Sound interesting to you? Interested in the science or the lottery-ticket possibilities of $80-million developmental biotechs? Have any experience with Robert Morris or know whether or not we should consider him a biotech savant? Let us know with a comment below.

Irregulars Quick Take

Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)
guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2.7K Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
newby3867
newby3867
February 3, 2014 12:40 am

Anyone have any thoughts on a company called Synthetics Biologics(SYN) and their science?Big trial going on with Trimesta which possiblly lead to a half billion market cap if drug is successfull and approved.SYN-0004 appears to be a great technology that could lead to alot of income also.Thanks,Glenn

Add a Topic
996
👍 6779
biocqr
biocqr
February 3, 2014 1:39 pm

Dr. Karma, your thoughts and comments are truly appreciated. Thanks for bringing Benetic to our attention. I have a questions on TT-034 as it relates to manufacturing and cost. How difficult is it to manufacture TT-034 on a mass scale? Will it be cheap to manufacture? Will this be an “off the shelf” product that can be stored for long periods of time or does it have to be customized for each patient. How do you think TT-034 will be priced vs. GILD’s sofo which will cost about $84K for a full course of treatment?

👍 2
karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 2:14 pm
Reply to  biocqr

Biocqr: Thanks for posting. Manufacturing viruses for pharmaceutical use is not a trivial thing, as you might guess. The virus has to reproduce itself in a suitable cell line. It must be then harvested, purified extensively by column chromatography, filtered through high performance filters to exclude other pathogens. Before administration, it must be characterized to confirm that its DNA sequences are intact, that there has been no mutation or drift, and that no contaminating viruses have crept in. Benitec has not published its method yet. However, a detailed description of a method for manufacture oncolytic viruses is given here, with quality-assurance issues discussed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073073/
I am guessing that purified virus is stored in liquid medium at 4 degrees Celsius, and not as a lyophilizate. Benitec likely manufactured all the TT-034 for the trials now going on at one fell swoop. The virus vector is not individualized. A significant hurdle they face is success: this will require an infusion of capital, partnering, and scaling up the manufacture. At the same time, however, what they would likely do is manufacture at one go all the anticipated doses needed for one year (one dose per patient based on current understanding). A purified DNA virus, as TT-034, should be quite stable at 4 C for a long time. Nucleases would have been excluded in preparation, and DNA is quite rugged.

Price and cost to manufacture are unknowns (Benitec knows I am sure, but it is not public information yet). Keep in mind that for HCV, sofosbuvir is by no means monotherapy. In the ideal case it will be paired with GILD’s ledipasvir when that is approved, or with BMS’s daclatasvir. BMS approached Gilead about making a fixed dose combination of sofosbuvir with daclatasvir, and Gilead declined. To me it is conceivable that some genotype 2 patients, which are not common but are easy to cure, might be able to get away with 12 weeks of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin (RBV is mutagenic for the virus, and also inhibits inosine monophosphate dehrydrogenase, needed for virus replication). For all others, however, what will be needed is sofosubuvir (or another NS5B inhibitor) plus an NS5A inhibitor. So $160,000 is the anticipated price tag. at least until something happens such as an off-patent manufacture in India with smuggling to the US. I have to say that right now Vladiir Putin has such a massive problem on his hand’s with that nation’s HCV, that for Russia to flout patent law and make these agents there, given that country’s sometimes kleptocratic behavior, would not be a surprise. Still, though $160,000 is not so horrible. The benchmark cost of IFN/ribavirin/proteinase inhibitor regimens, including the costs of transfusions that many will require from the anemai the drug cause, is $189,000.

Add a Topic
247
Add a Topic
424
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 4, 2014 12:14 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

“Dr French said Chinese investors had shown interest in his company’s work but he was keen to keep manufacturing in Australia and, with major manufacturers such as Ford culling back their operations, he thought Geelong was a good proposition.”

http://geelong.starcommunity.com.au/indy/2014-01-10/bio-tech-cure-for-geelong-loss-drug-maker-in-ford-plan/

Add a Topic
1270
👍 4
john
Guest
john
February 3, 2014 4:08 pm

I want to know more about this secreet club if it”s true

john
Guest
john
February 3, 2014 4:11 pm

inquisitive mind

karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 4:25 pm

Subramania: Welcome to Gumshoe and thanks for posting. Any friend of Siva’s is a friend of mine.

About Bio-Path, it is developing two anticancer agents based on RNAi technology. Their agents will be encapsulated in lipid-bilayer liposomes and given iv, resulting in fusion of the liposomes with cell membranes and deployment of RNAi into cells. That aspect I like, and I have wondered why others companies are not using a liposome approach. I have theories, and maybe we can go into those sometime here.

Considering this company’s ostensible tie with MD Anderson, its leadership and scientific advisory board are weak. I was formerly on faculty there. I would not buy the stock just because of the Anderson tie-in. I am not saying it’s a bad place. It is a complex place that few outsiders understand.

The agent that interests me most is the RNA directed against bcl-2. This is a protein overexpressed in B-lymphocyte neoplasms. Lymphocytes come as B and T cells, with B cells mainly secreting the five classes of antibody (IgG, IgM, IgA, IgD, and IgE). T cells are more sophisticated and come as helpers, suppressors and cytotoxic varieties. As we have talked about before here, all cells are highly armed to kill themselves in a tidy process called apoptosis if any of their continuous checks on their functions hint that the cell may have become immortalized. In order to survive, cancer must defuse the apoptotic pathways. Bcl-2 causes cells to resist apoptosis. Bio-path’s agent aims to silence expression of bcl-2 so as to restore apoptosis in cancerous cells.

Honestly the company’s current valuation is not justified. It has risen is resonance, in sympathy, with the big inflows of late into biotech, but is many years from having a clinical product. I am put off by the fact that they aim to test the bcl-2 agent in such a wide variety of cancers other than lymphoma. That will burn capital! They need to try it first in lymphoma; if it fails there, it will fail elsewhere.

The company is doing,as you know, a registered offering of $10 million in a move that values shares at $3, though it now trades at $4.41. I just cannot see a reason to invest here. I think some investors may read their literature and say, Hmm, MD Anderson, this company must have an advantage, an edge, must know something that is really going to fix cancer. I encourage you not to think that way; if you do, you will usually be disappointed. Many corporate bellyflops have emerged from there. I think there are much better places than this to park money, and you named some good choices.

As to Bio-Paths grb-2 agent, this is a list of all the proteins and genes grb-2 is known to interact with:

Arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase, Lymphocyte cytosolic protein 2, GAB2, B-cell linker, Abl gene, CD28, FRS2, Mitogen-activated protein kinase 9, CD22, NEU3, ETV6, MAP2, Dock180, PIK3R1, SH2B1, CRK, GAB1, MST1R, DNM1, Huntingtin, Src, Beta-2 adrenergic receptor, VAV2, ADAM15, RAPGEF1, VAV1, HER2/neu, Epidermal growth factor receptor, PDGFRB, PTK2, Erythropoietin receptor, Linker of activated T cells, Dystroglycan, SH3KBP1, Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor receptor, DCTN1, CDKN1B, Colony stimulating factor 1 receptor, EPH receptor A2, KHDRBS1, RET proto-oncogene, PLCG1, TrkA, PRKAR1A, Janus kinase 2, MUC1, CD117, Fas ligand, Janus kinase 1, VAV3, BCAR1, PTPN1, INPP5D, ITK, SHC1, PTPN12, C-Met, PTPN11, Glycoprotein 130, PTPN6, Syk, MAP4K1, Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome protein, NCKIPSD, PTPRA, BCR gene, CBLB, Cbl gene, SOS1, IRS1, TNK2, MED28, MAP3K1 and HNRNPC.

I am not meaning to be smug. My point it that with the protein acting at so many levels and in so many ways, modulating it is likely to prove either deadly or totally ineffectual.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
4463
Add a Topic
3397
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 3, 2014 5:07 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Great information Dr. Your knowledge is breathtaking to say the least.
For the phase 1 study so far L-Grb-2 was safe and well tolerated. the efficacy has been impressive even at a very low dose. and absolutely no toxicity. That is what made me buy this stock after such an impressive run. do you think it is better to be on the sidelines and see how it progresses into Phase 2?

Add a Topic
5971
👍 673
karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 5:47 pm

Hi Subramania: I cannot find that the data from that phase I trial has been published yet. The study opened in 2010. Surely there has been at least an abstract. Do you know? Can you direct me to it or post a link? I don’t doubt there was no significant tox seen, but a secondary outcome being assessed was reduction in leukemic blasts for the leukemia patients (It was a study in CML, AML, ALL and MDS patients mainly). I just want to know if the blast count dropped. If it did, I might hold, because clearly just since 1 January there has been some heavy single-block non-insider buying (maybe an institution). If there was no blast drop, sell.

Hang on…I found some data deep in this: http://www.biopathholdings.com/pdf/BiotechShowcasePresJan2014.pdf
Boy, the hoopla in this…..really aimed at the undiscerning….
Mostly AML patients, very very heterogeneous blast counts, some with reduction, some with no effect. The net effect at best is quite mild. Truly this is a small study with no adverse toxicity, but showing quite inconsistent results as far as blast counts and stability. They don’t give any info about the markers/cytogenetics of the AML patients. Number of cycles diverge widely.

Based on the fact that there is no phase II protocol available at clintrials.gov yet, and based on the fact that I anticipate a minimum of three years to complete phase II for this (given how long it took them to do a small phase I), and given the recent huge run-up, what I personally would do is sell, especially if you got in for pennies. I do not see what will move this company higher for the foreseeable future. Even doing a 21-day RSI calculation rather than 14, it is quite overbought. People are speculating like crazy in the absence of data. I think it will move down from here.

Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 3, 2014 6:19 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Great. Thanks for your insights! I will move over my funds to other stocks and not get tied with this one.

Any good suggestions? I am Long RNN, RXII, BNIKF(as of today). CLTX(another interesting stock). will sell my BPTH and move to other stocks which have immense potential.

Thanks Dr!

Add a Topic
5971
👍 673
karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 5:01 pm

All: I had posted earlier that Benitec would probably have an abstract or presentation at EASL in London in April. Now I am not so sure. No bad reflection on the company. I just learned that the abstract deadline is in 10 days, earlier than usual this year. I just don’t know if they can be expected to have abstract worthy data by 13 February. I could email the company and ask, but they will be hesitant to disclose anything that could be construed as price-sensitive. So, I don’t want April to roll around, Benitec present nothing, and that people infer the study is a wash. J.J., SIva, any thoughts?

sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 3, 2014 10:06 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

They haven’t yet dosed the first patient hence unsure what they will collect by Feb 13.
Or will they present the results on primitives?
Is it possible to get some information from Benitec on how the company is planning to communicate the progress of the trial? Will they only do it through abstracts? Is that the preferred way of broadcasting? Either way I’m not worried too much about it now. We should know if they are presenting by March 24.
From ilc-congress.eu website:
‘Monday 24 March 2014 at 10:00 CEST – a large quantity of abstracts showing abstract title, author’s names and abstract data will be posted online two weeks ahead of the congress. These abstracts are publicly available and NOT under embargo.’

Add a Topic
5916
👍 4
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 3, 2014 10:20 pm
Reply to  sivapann

There is one more Liver conference happening in June 4-7 (http://2014.ilts.org/abstracts). Here too they have closed the abstract dates. I will assume Benitec is not doing anything at APASL, Brisbane.

👍 4
Ken
Irregular
Ken
February 3, 2014 10:41 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Hi Dr. KSS:
Regarding Benitec, what are your thoughts on their patents expiring in 2018? Also, does the fact that they do not own but rather license most of their technology from CSIRO/founders raise any concern?
Additionally, what are your thoughts on the Crispr / cas9 system for gene therapy? Could this technology potentially displace RNAi?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/11/25/new-company-editas-medicine-performing-molecular-surgery-disease-causing-genes/FEkt11LNU8y4UL5ZHSRO1N/story.html
These are not non-trivial risk factors to the Benitec story, and I would be delighted to hear your angle. Thanks
Ken

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
5254
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 3, 2014 11:17 pm
Reply to  Ken

First CRISPR-Tinkered Primates Born
Twin macaques are the first primates born whose genomes were edited using CRISPR technology.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39068/title/First-CRISPR-Tinkered-Primates-Born/

Add a Topic
5254
👍 4
karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 6:47 pm

Subramania: Say more about CLTX, Celsus. I am a little confused, as shares were trading as ADRs since spring 2013, but there was a recent IPO of shares at $6. Market cap and float are small. I see talk of clinical development, but no specifics about clinical trials. They are pursuing agents in classes with enormous competition, classes that have many members. Is this company just funding sinecureal posts for some famous scientists with nothing of significance planned?

Others: I am definitely not ignoring questions about other companies, just trying to stay on top of things and admittedly behind.

Add a Topic
636
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 3, 2014 7:50 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Celsus(CLTX) is focused on the development of novel non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Their lead candidates are MRX6 & MRX4. MRX-6 is a topical cream aimed at treating eczema (with the first indication being contact dermatitis). Here is a link to their interim phase 2 trials which is very promising. http://www.celsustx.com/documents/2013-05-08–%20Celsus%20Therapeutics%20–%20MRX-6%20Interim%20Analysis%20Data%20–%20Final.pdf
Also Baker Bros, Sabby Management, Broadfin Captial and Franklin Resources have a significant stake in this company when it comes to investors. Each ADS is equal to 10 ordinary shares. so on a full diluted capital it comes around 53m shares outstanding. Most of the warrants dont expire for the next few years. more details to follow.

Add a Topic
3229
👍 673
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 3, 2014 8:21 pm

Also it is UK based company. They did this offering to uplist to NASDAQ.

👍 673
David B.
Member
February 3, 2014 8:05 pm

Any thoughts from anyone regarding the most promising stem cell companies? Some theorize that ACTC is the only pure embryonic stem cell play and that these stem cells should be far superior to adult stem cells used by many other companies like ATHX. ACTC has great science but has had terrible management. Some think the company will go bust but the technology will eventually be revolutionary. Others think the company will make one a rich person if you buy now. Thoughts anyone?

Add a Topic
948
Add a Topic
948
karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 8:27 pm

Subramania: Thanks. Yes I knew they were in the UK. When I pulled them up, I found a stock listed starting for the first time around May of 2013, at quite higher levels than now, and headed downward throughout 2013 to less than $10, then the IPO.

The thing about agents like those for dermatitis is that you might be stunned at how full that arsenal is. We have everything from hydrocortisone cream all the way up to ultrapotent fluorinated steroids such as fluocinolone that is thousands of times stronger than HC cream. We also have topical calcineurin inhibitors such as pemecrolimus to avoid the skin thinning effects of the fluorinated steroid creams. It is hard for me to see a market for new topicals. I am not ruling it out or shutting you down. Please feed me more data.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
636
karmaswimswami
February 3, 2014 8:40 pm

David B: again, I have been studying the stem cell players. I haven’t seen any burning bushes yet. Many competing claims. It would be good if we could collect a database of those also. Players we need to mull are Athersys, Biotime, Mesoblast, Plurastem, ACTC. Could people mention others we need to consider? I do feel that ISCO, while speculative and risky, is poised to surprise with its stem cell therapy for Parkinsonism. If it works, this becomes a big contender suddenly. It goes from 22 cents to a few dollars.

Add a Topic
947
jim t.
jim t.
February 3, 2014 10:21 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

I apologize to all in advance of a personal question, but I am somewhat at a loss when looking for credible information. Because of a problematic adenoma, I had to have my pituitary gland surgically removed. My left eye was not working and I had a crushing headache prior to the surgery – this all happened over a course of 3 days. As a result, I am on complete hormone replacement therapy … including human growth hormone. And therein lies my question about (or search for) information. I know that the cortisol is the more complicated therapy; it messes up my sugars and I take Kombiglyze (metformin and saxagliptin blend) for that, but it has also meant that when I get sick I get very sick. My blood pressure drops and I have ended up in the hospital a few times for things that should not require it. I am 67. The growth hormone is intended (I have been told) to “smooth things out” and help make me feel better, but I would like to know more. Things I read are conflicting and my hope is that the good doctor might be able to steer me towards some credible information. I have been a 20 year biotech investor with both some very good (ISRG, I guess the best) results and some ones I would just as soon forget. Varian and the Vanguard Health fund have been my IRA rocks for quite some time. This thread has been a jewel and I have already acted upon a couple of suggestions. We are all very lucky to have found it and I am going to reinstate my Irregulars membership.
Hug ’em all.

Add a Topic
6225
Add a Topic
3515
ockrazor
ockrazor
February 4, 2014 8:29 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

gern

👍 132
professorredbag
February 3, 2014 11:52 pm

I’m amazed that $PVCT has generated the kind and number of comments it has, here and elsewhere. I am not a scientist or Doctor of medicine but have studied the philosophy of science and Thomas Kühne in particular for his revolutionary and profound take on paradigm shifts which I have applied to research in education and to changing my views on change in other fields. Even a brief examination of his ideas is worth the effort.
There are arenas in which the paradigm shifts are happening at unprecedented and mind boggling rates, at least for an old hippy like me. 3D printing and it’s impact on manufacturing and other forms of technology, the burgeoning changes in understanding how and under what conditions we learn what can be learned optimally, and in the field of science – medicine or biotechnology in particular, are a few of prime importance. (Even our beloved American football is beginning to change – a timely though for some not a welcomed reminder.)
No, I’m not going to embark on a treatise on any one of them here. There have been too many failed attempts at that already (speaking as an English professor).
I am simply going to state that any important decision in today’s world (investing environment, as is the case here) needs careful and thorough, personal and professional analysis from many sources and perspectives and that cannot be done on a site like this, however peripherally insightful and often entertaining it may be. However, in all such undertakings it is a wise rule of thumb to go to the source and work one’s way out from there.
As a stakeholder in Provectus Biopharm and as researcher, I am doubly compelled to urge everyone with an interest to visit the company’s website http://www.pvct.com and the scientificall based information including the news releases therein. All of us have personality quirks but we operate in our respective professions, professionally or do not stay in them for long.
‘Nuf said, pass the J (speaking of change!)

Add a Topic
2776
Add a Topic
5916
👍 1
herbalix
Member
February 4, 2014 7:27 am

Hi Mr. Tweedie,
your comment(s) is (are) greatly appreciated. Thank You!!!

👍 207
professorredbag
February 7, 2014 3:15 am
Reply to  herbalix

Thank you. You are kind.

👍 1
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 4, 2014 1:05 am

About Single-shot therapy, an old article but relevant.
“But if it looks as if it’s working, it could put all of the new HCV drugs off the shelf, even before they’ve had much of a chance to get on.”

Also a warning
“It’s important to emphasize that this is not ready for prime time, not by a long shot. We all know of very promising drugs that have fallen to the ground during clincial trials.”
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AASLD/42715

👍 4
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 4, 2014 7:15 am

William Tweedie re your #200 reply: First of all, congratulations on your present > double with PVCT. It is a pity you (and others) chose to ‘reply’ (other than to trivia and fluff like most of my offerings which are only there to break the intensity…..Shakespeare used this device all the time knowing that the audience would lose concentration unless he gave their grey cells a comedy break every so often). Better to publish a new comment with referrence to the original question number, as it was so hard to find yours in such a long thread that many here may not have the time/tenacity, so were unable to appreciate your comments in context. This is a pity as you are clearly an educated man who writes well, thinks deeply and deserves to be heard and considered.

I think its important that we all understand that opinion is just that….opinion. If it were ‘certain’ there would be no need for trials and we would all be millionaires. You have given your opinion (for which Im grateful). Dr KSS has given his opinion. Only retrospect will prove which is right and show us where we should have put our money/faith…….too late for most of us. As I have said before; taking advise is a question of faith in the author for the average ‘ignorant’ investor. Doubtless there will be those who took your advice and are grateful to you. But here on GS, we have a unique thread where a generous specialist invites questioning. You may not agree with his answers so have a right of reply for further pertinent grilling. By this refining method we ALL gain (and that probably inc’s Dr KSS who has several times demonstrated his willingness to review, elaborate and/or reconsider. ) This is the process by which our investing and indeed science itself moves forward productively. May your double double again. Regards AH

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3932
professorredbag
February 7, 2014 3:36 am
Reply to  Alan Harris

Yes. Discussion, debate, interspersed with humor (wry perhaps but not malicious) is a productive venture. One of my favorite quotes from Shakespeare: “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.” One must always keep one’s mind unlocked with critical keys. Thank you.

👍 1
karmaswimswami
February 4, 2014 9:14 am

Dispatch yesterday from Mumbai about sofosbuvir plans in India. A closely-watched situation.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/gilead-local-generic-players-in-talks-to-bring-hepatitis-c-drug-into-india/article5649841.ece

Add a Topic
247
jamespaul108
jamespaul108
February 4, 2014 10:25 am

Furiex Pharmaceuticals (FURX) is up 64.30 (140%). Wonder what happened.
Dr. KSS, regarding comment #328, other stem cell companies that you or others have mentioned are Neuralstem (CUR), StemCells Inc. (STEM), and Brainstorm Cell Therapeutics (BCLI). This forum would be grateful for your insights on these and the others you referred to. But I wonder, given the report from Japan that someone here posted the link to, would all of these companies work be superseded by this apparent advance?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stem-cell-breakthrough-japanese-scientists-discover-way-to-create-embryoniclike-cells-without-the-ethical-dilemma-9093235.html

Add a Topic
4304
Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
5503
👍 37
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 4, 2014 10:35 am

Benitec’s P1 timetable:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/19837781-pannobhaso/2640571-benitecs-timetable-to-success?source=kizur_seekingalpha

You can also derive the timetable
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01899092 and see under ‘Further study details as provided by Tacere Therapeutics, Inc.:’

Add a Topic
5916
👍 4
KennyG
Guest
KennyG
February 4, 2014 12:00 pm
Reply to  sivapann

Based on the timetable referenced in Siva’s post, I can’t see how BNIKF can even be in a position to meet the deadline for the June 4-7 Liver Conference. Still not necessarily a negative, cause this is a long-term investment idea.

sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 4, 2014 11:22 am

Below is a piece from http://rnaitherapeutics.blogspot.com. Note that the author is pro Tekmira. Dr KSS – I would like to hear your view on this.

Bad news for Benitec
In a recent paper by Lisowski et al. from Stanford (Kay lab) which appeared in Nature, very strong evidence was presented that the AAV8 serotype is far from ideal when it comes to transducing human hepatocytes. This is in contrast to preclinical results mainly in mice that have shown highly efficient, almost 100% transduction of hepatocytes, the transduction level probably needed to achieve an RNAi cure of HepC.

Based on the preclinical work, the AAV8 serotype was readily embraced by gene therapists and adopted for various liver-related clinical studies. Surprisingly, however, the data so far in hemophilia did not support a significant advantage of AAV8 over the old AAV2 workhorse.

The study by Lisowski et al. shows that this is very likely the result of poor AAV8 transduction of human hepatocytes. Among the multiple striking results, in mice with chimeric human/mouse livers, basically only the murine hepatocytes could be transduced whereas the adjacent human hepatocytes were not.

This is an unfortunate development that Benitec cannot be held responsible for. It could be a double-whammy though for the company as in addition to the commercial concerns about the HepC indication for TT-034, results from the ongoing phase I study may not even support the delivery technology for other liver applications. There is, however, light at the end of the tunnel as there are plenty new AAV serotype that appear to be as good in transducing human hepatocytes as AAV8 is in transducing murine hepatocytes.”

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
4044
👍 4
ockrazor
ockrazor
February 4, 2014 1:36 pm
Reply to  sivapann

Siva Panneerselvam-

So after reading Dr. KSS response do you still perceive this as bad news or are we just wishing this trial will work

Add a Topic
3932
👍 132
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 4, 2014 6:32 pm
Reply to  ockrazor

SS: I do not have any medical background and hence not in a position to judge. But I trust Dr KSS insurmountable knowledge and analysis he has done on Benitec. From my own visualization of the science, as the technology modifies the DNA to silence non-functional and disease causing genes, it seems powerful. When FDA has allowed GMOs to be consumed in healthy bodies why not allow this therapy to cure diseased body.

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3022
👍 4
👍 4
karmaswimswami
February 4, 2014 12:38 pm

Siva:
I am aware of that Kay paper. A big problem is that I cannot find a full-text version of it online and am not a subscriber to Nature. But I see several immediate problems with it. First, they are not looking at human hepatocytes in humans. They are looking at transformed, malignant hepatocytes lines, likely HepG2 or Hep3B, xenografted into a mouse. I can tell you that transformed hepatocytes have behaviors radically dissimilar to normal human hepatocytes. Their surface markers are different. Their cytology is radically different. Their mRNA expression pattern is very different. And that should be apparent, I think, from the mere fact that a liver tumor implant survives in a mouse. What would happen if you tried hooking up a mouse liver in a human, or implanting a bit of mouse liver in human skin? The immune system would obliterate it within a couple of hours. That these implants survive in mice says that things are very much not normal.

Two important reasons that AAV8 was chosen were first that it shows high liver tropism, as compared to other serotypes, in rhesus monkeys. Second, despite the merits of AAV2, that serotype is highly immunogenic in primates.

I really feel that a number of good papers have satisfactorily addressed this before:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21778099
http://jvi.asm.org/content/79/1/214.full (by Kay)
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/hum.2013.065?journalCode=hum (AAV2 versus AAV8)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC129358/

AAV8’s have been used in humans with success already. Meanwhile, Kay’s recent Nature paper totally ignores all the non-human primate work. NHP’s have livers that are astoundingly similar to those of humans. See this paper by David Suhy of Benitec:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437581/

The recent Kay paper talks about two things: poor transduction efficacy in mice with livers that are human/mouse chimeras. I need to see the data. And in mice with xenografts made of malignant human liver cells. Let me tell you from experience. My own doctoral dissertation was about the then-unknown structure of a human plasma proteinase inhibitor. I studied the production of what all felt was that same protein in HepG2 and Hep3B cells, which are cancerous cells taken from surgically removed tumors. Further characterization of this protein made by those cells showed that it was a deranged mimic of the molecule I was after, and that what I was studying was not even being made. A wasted year of 12 hours a day 7 days a week. When you assume hepatoma cells are behaving like normal hepatocytes, prepare to get badly burned.

The key thing is that regardless of what the Kay paper seems to present, the Benitec study is underway. The protocol (I checked it this am) calls for 2 patients to be dosed subtherapeutically at first. As I read it, these are simultaneous, not seriatim. It is reasonable to assume that at Duke this has already happened. So things are in motion and we are going to know whether AAV8’s work in humans in this application.

One other point I would make is that AAV8 was consciously chosen for its liver tropism so that it could be given by peripheral iv with uptake by the liver. Other liver gene silencing studies to date have been done by accessing the liver portal vein. Doing this is a heinous risky thing (study an anatomy chart and you will see. It takes a free abdomen puncture to get into the portal vein). Obviously the FDA would never have approved a human study involving portal vein access. When this approach has been used, it has been done in isolated cases by institutions using vectors constructed on site. A trial by a drug company for general human applicability is very different. This is why the Benitec trial has me fixated. Regardless of the outcome, we learn much.

Add a Topic
3022
karmaswimswami
February 4, 2014 12:56 pm

A little arithmetic we did last night:
The first column of numbers is recent share prices of 4 RNAi companies in the US. The second column is their resulting market cap at that price. The third column is what the implied price of BLT (not BNIKF) shares would be (in A$) if Benitec attained the market cap of its peers. BLT closed this am at 0.78, down 7 per cent, implying a US price of 0.69. The recent BNIKF run up owed to interest on this side of the pond. I think the reason Benitec got this way is because, one, the ASX has been bearish for a long time. Two, so much of Australian investing has been around a mining boom. People there just do not understand biotech at all, and are afraid of it. Australia is a biotech wild-west more than here. A few excellent companies like Benitec and Mesoblast. Others more dubious. People are not plumping up biotech market cap there at all. Increasingly, given the breadth and solidity of Benitec’s IP, it is reasonable to assume it will gravitate toward a market cap more in line with its peers.

Dicerna DRNA $32.660 $621,384,949 $7.29
Alnylam ALNY $78.680 $5,710,485,016 $67.02
Arrowhead ARWR $15.070 $667,476,398 $7.83
Tekmira TKMR $14.40 $313,867,125 $3.68

Add a Topic
1270
Add a Topic
4181
Add a Topic
4179

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
10
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x