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
biocqr
biocqr
February 5, 2014 9:31 pm

Dr. K, I’m still somewhat confused about the viability of using AAV8 for the successful transduction of TT-034. According to the author Dr. Mark Kay, the NEJM Hemophilia paper that you cite as proof that AAV8 will work is the same paper that created doubts about AAV8 and served as the inspiration for the Nature paper.

The Nature AAV8 paper cited in #337 and the 2011 NEJM Hemophilia paper you cite in #344 were both co-authored by Dr. Mark Kay (Kay Lab- Stanford) who is the Director of the Human Gene Therapy Program at Stanford..
http://med.stanford.edu/genetherapy/research/spotlight.html

I purchased and downloaded the Nature AAV8 paper..available for viewing here…
http://goo.gl/ttwNvF

Dr. Mark Kay was the founder of Avocel which was acquired by Benetic in 2004…Dr. Kay became the Deputy Chairman of Benetic’s SAB…
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/05/18/1645.aspx

Dr. Kay posted a followup comment to Dirk Haussecker’s post cited in #337…..
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Haussecker said…Mark Kay asked me to post this in response to some of the comments made here:
I would like to make a few statements in response to some of the comments about the paper we published in Nature. I was one of the senior investigators on the first clinical trial in which AAV was administered systemically in a human. This was AAV-2 vector expressing human factor IX. Although there was limited human data, the initial dose response was similar to what was predicted from the mouse and non-human primate preclinical data. The trial was stopped due to an unforeseen late T cell response that eliminated transgene expression. All of the investigators agreed the trial should not continue but there were mixed opinions about whether moving forward with AAV-8 should be the next approach.
I was a strong supporter of this idea but the company that made the AAV2 clinical grade vector was not willing (for many valid reasons) to make the AAV8 vector. I participated in the St. Judes/London AAV8-human factor IX trial. The first set of results have now been published in the NEJM (end of 2011). Prior to the trial and during the trial, I continued to support the idea of using AAV-8-shRNAs for treating hepatic viral infections. However, after the clinical trial was initiated, there was a result that was not anticipated. The AAV-8 dose response in humans was about 10 to 20 times less than that predicted from mouse and non-human primate preclinical studies. There are lots of possible reasons for this and I for one did not think the most likely explanation was a difference between human, monkey and mouse hepatocytes. We know there are lots of discrepancies between in vivo and in vitro transduction – even when the studies are limited to primary cells. Therefore, one of the goals of the Nature study was to use the chimeric murine human liver model to see if there were innate differences in AAV vector transduction between species in an anatomically intact organ. Realizing that all animal models have potential strengths and weaknesses, short of injecting people—this was the best way we could think of to make a comparison.
The second goal was to use the chimeric murine human liver and a process known as DNA molecular shuffling to select for AAVs with improved transduction properties. This is also described in the paper.
In terms of timing, the paper was published on Dec 25th. Nonetheless, we presented our data at multiple international meetings for more than a year and Benitec was aware of the results. For the person who commented on the shRNA induced toxicity in mice—many other labs have reproduced similar results in different tissues and animal models. Benitec scientists observed toxicity in both large and small animal models, which resulted in the need to use an altered promoter.
For the sake of disclosure, I was the scientific founder of Avocel. Even after I elected not to continue with Tacerebio, I was still in favor of an AAV8-shRNA trial for HCV infection. Of note, I would have used a very different expression cassette. However, my opinion on using AAV8 as a vector for an HCV trial has changed over the last couple of years.
The data is the data — my opinions are shaped based on the data.
January 12, 2014 at 12:51 AM
http://goo.gl/8gHJDv <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Add a Topic
4044
Add a Topic
4044
Add a Topic
899
👍 2
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 3:24 pm
Reply to  biocqr

OMG…we have another heavyweight on board. Thanks and welcome to the scales of research.

ockrazor
ockrazor
February 5, 2014 10:41 pm

Anyone handicapping exas march trial results. Huge potential

👍 132
ockrazor
ockrazor
February 5, 2014 10:42 pm

I have no position yet.

👍 132
bupsbups
bupsbups
February 5, 2014 10:44 pm

The symbol is MKEA under the European exchange Euronext.
Here’s the link https://www.euronext.com/en/products/equities/FR0010609263-XPAR

Add a Topic
5916
👍 12
newby3867
newby3867
February 5, 2014 11:19 pm

DR KSS and others I know we have discussed Stem Cell Companies a bit on this thread.I am looking for exposure in my portfolio for a nice stem cell company.ATHERSYS(ATHX) intrigues me alot for these reasons.Their Regenerative Medicine Platform using multi-stem looks solid.With Pfizer aboard here with them validates their science also.ATHX and Pfizer are nearing completion of phase 2 for IBD.Data is due out at least by April as per CEO.Promising data from this trial could trigger a milestone payment from Pfizer and propel stock much higher.ATHX also have a nice cash position and a pipeline with alot of potential.I also think ATHX is about in the over sold position after their run up from a 1.50 to 4.33.Stock is currently sitting at 3.38.It seems like a good buy from here and just wanted to see what others thought.Thanks,Glenn

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
5971
👍 6779
David B
Guest
February 7, 2014 1:35 am
Reply to  newby3867

Either you and I are both suckers Glenn or we have good noses for promising companies as I have a position in ATHX as well. I own it for the reasons you note. It’s not my favorite pick, but I think it has an excellent upside.

Add a Topic
1278
newby3867
newby3867
February 7, 2014 3:30 am
Reply to  David B

I like you do not have the knowledge and science that some have here post but do my research as time allows.My portfolio right now consists of ACRX,RNN,CTIX,MDFZF,VTUS,ATHX,BNIKF.This is such a great thread David because there is a great mix going on here with doctors,science people,people wanting to learn about health and last but not least making some good choices about their stock picks.This is the best thing I have ever been involved with by far.Thanks to everyone.Glenn

Add a Topic
5971
👍 6779
newby3867
newby3867
February 6, 2014 1:18 am

Dr KSS doing some late night research and came across a company called Medifocus(MDFZF).Their is a research report out recently a high dollar one I might add claiming them as the future of molecular imaging.Does this science have a chance to get in the market?Their adaptive phased array(APA) microwave focusing platform has been approved from FDA andHealth Canada for a phase 3 trial.They also have a already FDA approved Prolieve Thermodilation system for the treatment of (BPH) that is already making money.They also have a Endo-thermotherapy platform.Both platforms are USA and international patent protected.Very interesting stock for 18 cents.Wall Street cheatsheet did a recent article on them on December 19 by Tom Myer.He thinks 2014 could be the year this companys shares go alot higher with strong catalysts in place for 2014.Thanks,Glenn

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
1515
👍 6779
David B.
Member
February 6, 2014 8:18 pm
Reply to  newby3867

Glenn, I am long Medifocus as it’s a nano cap that already is producing revenue with its Prolieve System to shrink Benign Prostate Enlargement. Their more exciting technology is using heat/microwaves against cancer tumors (as a stand alone or in conjunction with other treatments). They have had very promising results thus far and the technology appears to be quite safe. The trial they are doing is as to breast cancer which makdes sense. The technology should, theoretically, work on most cancer tumors (if it truly ends up being efficacious). I think it’s well worth a small speculative position if you have a stomach for volatility.

Add a Topic
4454
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3359
newby3867
newby3867
February 6, 2014 10:10 pm
Reply to  David B.

Thanks for the comments David,I do think this one has a place in the speculative side of a portfolio.It just maybe flying under the radar right now.If this breast cancer trial goes well look out.Thanks,Glenn

Add a Topic
5916
Add a Topic
3359
Add a Topic
3397
👍 6779
David B
Guest
February 9, 2014 7:04 pm
Reply to  newby3867

There was a really thorough and well researched article on SA regarding Medifocus by an author I really like and trust. Unfortunately, the article has gone SA Pro so isn’t available anymore for the general public. He rightly pointed out that it’s one of a very few nanocaps that may well be making profits in 2014 as the Prolieve System’s use for treating benign enlarged prostate in the urologists office has been growing significantly. He was also quite high on the early trial results for both safety and efficacy of their treatment for breast cancer tumors. This treatment is a potential blockbuster but of course it is years away from getting approval. The fact that it has an approved medical device which is bringing in revenue is fairly remarkable for a nanocap and helps one keep the patience while waiting for the blockbuster to hopefully come through.

Add a Topic
4454
Add a Topic
3359
Add a Topic
3397
Steve
Steve
February 6, 2014 4:15 am

Dr. KSS: That you for educating us in previously unapproachable areas. I am learning a lot from everone and especially from your thoughtful responses. I was wondering if we should seize the opportunity to invest in the recently legalized medical Marijuana, while shares are a penny/pennies per share. Some of the companies being touted on other message boards are: PLPL = $1.62 (volume of 600k shares); AEGY = $0.0091 (Volume of 130 million shares); and RFMK = $0.0039 (Volume of 66 million shares).

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
4091
DBMD
Irregular
DBMD
February 6, 2014 7:44 am

I noticed something mentioned about clotting earlier, and saw another company doing similar things RevMedx with xstat. It remains a private company but was recognized with a MEDY award for the most disruptive technology at FutureMed November 2013 (Hotel Del Coronado, San Diego, California.) This seems a little different than the other various products like Kombat that are on the market. Most somehow involve platelet aggregation and the blood clotting cascade. This does as well, but radiopaque expanding foam sponges are injected into the wound for homeostasis. It may have IPO potential which is hard for the small investor to get into.
Some thoughts about stem cells: there are adult which includes most if not all major news stories of stem cell breakthroughs, and embryonic which has ethical as well as clinical problems. This link gives an impressive list of breakthroughs for ASC and the medical journal reports http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm
The main problems with embryonic, from a clinical view, is they are too antigenic with too much graft vs. host problems, immature and unstable with unpredictable results. The bad outcome in Parkinson’s patients in a NEJM article demonstrates this http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/03/parkcells.html
In terms of investment, I would stay away from embryonic for ethical reasons, and ultimately for clinical. The immature cells have no real advantages for treating human maladies over adult stem cells. This is despite their use since 2001. The recent news of embryonic from adult was done in mice, so from mice to men may be some time away. I’m not sure what advantage this would be over Moraga’s blastomere like embryonic cells (since 2006). Also some concerns about why embryonic (ESC) did not work was because the cell lines were propagated in mouse cells. The ASC to ESC may avoid the ethical and cost problems, but clinically may have no breakthrough treatments. If Obamacare continues with its policies there might be a lot of funds channeled into embryonic research. It would then be politics and not science driving the price. If one were in the know about where the funds were going, then you might have overnight gains. But there is the ethics. . .
Adult blastomere like cells may have some importance for research in cancer. They behave like oncogenes in cancer cell lines and oncogenes may actually be stem cells that are not turned off.

Add a Topic
636
Add a Topic
948
Add a Topic
948
👍 1097
arch1
February 6, 2014 2:03 pm
Reply to  DBMD

Daniel REVMEDX is is company I was avoiding revealing in citing difficulty
of dealing with the obscure. Is TINY and I was sure totally unknown. Once again I am amazed at diverse knowledge of people commenting in this string.

👍 7797
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 12:09 pm

Here is one I throw out to the group for an opinion: QRXPY. This is QRx Pharma, and Australian company with offices also in New Jersey. My feeling is that it is in a position to surprise here in coming weeks with a drug approval. It is underfollowed and largely unknown. While I am not so sure about it as a long term investment, as I think ardor over its new agent will cool, it may have a place for a 6-12 month hold.

This company has developed and put much study into an opioid agent for pain called MoxDuo. It is a fixed combination of morphine and oxycodone. When I first heard about this company two years ago I was inclined to dismiss it. Increasingly, however, I suspect the drug will be FDA-approved. Its PDUFA data is 24 May 2014. The company’s lead advisor is Solomon Snyder, a Hopkins psychiatrist who has long been considered the “dean” of American neuroscience, particularly for opioid receptor work. The theory behind the combination is that there is synergy, that one gets better pain relief overall than with equianalgesic doses of morphine or oxycodone alone, and with significantly less respiratory drive suppression. At its first FDA review, the FDA seemed warm to the idea of the combination but wanted clarification about the respiratory safety data. I predict it will get approved. If it does, the company (now at a market cap of about US$100 million) should have acute and robust share appreciation. It has some stealth. It is not being followed by analysts, but has done creditable solid clinical trials. The US shares are ADRs; not sure the ratio to the ASX shares, but they trade at about A$0.80.

I am tempted to get in for the ride up and then sell.

Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3022
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 6, 2014 12:24 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Hello Dr. KSS,

Based on this 2008 filing every ADR is equal to five ordinary shares. So based on today’s ADR price of $3.72 it comes out to roughly 74 cents per share.

http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001144204-08-031931%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2008%5C05%5C23%5C&CoName=QRXPHARMA+LTD&FormType=F-6&RcvdDate=5%2F23%2F2008&pdf=

Add a Topic
3932
👍 673
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 1:41 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Thanks Subramania.

QRx Pharma did not choose the oxycodone/morphine combination haphazardly. Both are mu-opioid receptor agonists for their analgesic effects, but have very different profiles in their pharmacodynamics as regards receptor stimulation in different brain zones versus spinal cord. Snyder has advocated for a long time that a combo of the two would give the best of both worlds for pain relief, as the agents have different pain relief behaviors, but without the downsides of full doses of either drug. This sophisticated recent paper on the differential effects of morphine versus oxycodone in a mouse bone pain model suggests Snyder is probably exactly right. Studies like this, though not in humans, are likely to figure favorably into the FDA’s decision on whether to approve MoxDuo.

arch1
February 6, 2014 2:16 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. K I think synergy is valid expectation & then wonder about cocktail with Nsaid
member. Small cost for “taste” of possible run from$.80. However be warned of my
personal dismal record in timing.

Add a Topic
3841
👍 7797
David B.
Member
February 6, 2014 5:52 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Personally, I wil not buy this one as I see too many folks with opiod dependence. This is an ethical decision on my part, not a financial decision. I’ve worked professionally with too many addicts and the effects on children and families is often devistating. I wish that the medical profession would find more alternatives for pain management. This one is rather emotionally raw for me right now as my spouse injured her back at work 7 months ago and is pretty medication intolerant. Exercise and acupuncture seem to be better for her than any meds and of course the worker’s comp. only wants to pay for pills. Our healthcare system leaves a lot to be desired. Okay, just stepped down off my soapbox!

Add a Topic
372
Add a Topic
229
arch1
February 6, 2014 6:33 pm
Reply to  David B.

David I think “personal reasons” most valid for actions. Whether wealthy or poor must live with self. Agree about opioid devastation but with better patient monitoring may be
minimized. There again “self” necessary. HUGE devastation from banned substances,
but nanny cannot fix. Better more people leave juvenile desire for instant gratification of all life’s choices? Opinion not about you & yours.

👍 7797
biocqr
biocqr
February 6, 2014 6:37 pm
Reply to  David B.

David, Elite Pharma (ELTP) has an opiod abuse deterrent drug.. a oxycodone/naltrexone 2 bead combination capsule. Naltrexone is an opiod antagonist that neutralizes the high from opiods. The naltrexone bead is designed to pass through the digestive system with being released however it will be released if crushed and snorted.

👍 2
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 1:49 pm

We have spoken here about my concern that heavy antioxidant use causes earlier death from cancers and infections. This just-released study lends credence to my assertions and fears. Here, vitamin E and N-acetylcysteine, two commonly advocated anti-oxidants for human use, hasten lung cancer progression in a mouse model.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24477002

Add a Topic
4555
Add a Topic
3397
arch1
February 6, 2014 2:26 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. As passing comment; We have never seen life created,merely passed along. Until we come to terms/understanding of that we do not find Panacea. IMHO

👍 7797
pancholin
pancholin
February 6, 2014 2:54 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Now I know why a woman who I lived with in college was found riddled with cancer after a lifetime of vitamin consumption. Her house was literally a vitamin store. She sold for one of the multi-level marketing companies. She firmly believed that consumption of vitamins and antioxidants would keep her from getting cancer, and helped to instill that belief in me. Ironic they exacerbate the very thing she was trying to avoid. Seriously I’m cutting back vitamin consumption big time after reading this and other comments from you Doc Karma. That said, there are probably substances that the supplement industry promotes that are beneficial in small amounts. I’ve seen your stand on vitamin D. I’d be interested in any other vitamins, herbs or antioxidants you’ve recommended, researched, or shunned. Thank you Doc for this article!

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
5399
Add a Topic
3421
👍 5
arch1
February 6, 2014 2:59 pm
Reply to  pancholin

DR. Please I also ask same as James & thank you.Old saying “no free lunch” seems true.

👍 7797
Leo S
Guest
Leo S
February 6, 2014 3:33 pm
Reply to  arch1

Please see 391

Jo McIntyre
February 7, 2014 12:55 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Vit A has similar lung cancer promoting qualities, I believe, based on some Scandanavian study (Swedish?) I read quite some time ago. Jumping to conclusions by a non-scientist (me), it looks as if the water soluble antioxidants – Vit C, and the Bs – may not lead to that effect? Does that make sense?

Add a Topic
4555
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
540
welchtt
Member
welchtt
February 20, 2014 5:04 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

I am really enjoying your comments, as I am finding your exchanges intriguing. I think you are developing a following. Thank you for BNIKF, “Good catch!” As to the study above….

What did they do, put the alphabet on a dartboard and administer the ones they hit? Anyway, I read the article and it looks like a bash on the use of supplements. Perhaps if the SAD wasn’t so nutrient deficient? They also don’t mention how large of a saturation they are causing towards Vitamin E in the mice, and somehow I missed what kind of human-equivalent lung cancer they were inducing. Honestly though, with the dismal survival rates of 8 of the 10 (or more) types of lung cancers, you can’t blame those patients for losing faith in oncology as a sole means of intervention, or even relief.

The problem with the approach of the study, or the attitude about antioxidants in general, is failing to realize the overabundance of one essential hogs up all of the receptors away from the other essentials. So, for example, excessive Vitamin E will prohibit uptake of Vitamin A just by over-competition. They use the same receptors. So the result is the body’s inability to fight infection from lack of Vitamin A. It’s basic physiology, and common knowledge to anyone who knows their supplements. One can’t just apply an antioxidant like a drug, you have to have the balance, which usually includes some form of modest exercise as well. Thus the term “supplement”. Anyway, I have only heard of N-acetylcysteine alleviating a slight runny nose and as a side benefit, the associated cough from post-nasal drip.

So from what I’ve read elsewhere…In addition to improving overall diet, and quitting smoking, the “useful” supplement for lung cancer is supposed to be 500mg B-17 (for energy), and believe it or not, baking soda and honey (the sugar feeds the cancer, and supposedly the alkalizing baking soda piggybacks to try to reverse the known acidic environment caused by the cancer). Not claimed to be a cure, of course, but it is supposed to help the patient with the ordeal. I didn’t mean to type so much.

Add a Topic
3555
Add a Topic
4555
Add a Topic
3397
👍 11
Randy Trier
February 6, 2014 3:02 pm

Hello All,
Been an irregular for 6 months (thanks travis) and held hostage to this budding investment club,anchored by the good DR. KSS, since i found this thread the other day.
I would be very thankful to you karmaswiswami if you would give me your thoughts on the following-
1-Would you still be a buyer of BNIKF at this point.I have no position at this point.

2-SCTPF is going after cancer cells and stem cells with the CD47 approach.Similar to the Stanford research at the moment. SCTPF uses their SIRPaFc product.Here is a Paste for a brief description-

To this day the company’s focus continues to be on finding ways to manipulate the patient’s immune system to treat disease. Specifically, they are focusing on using immunotherapy to block negative pathways in malignant cells, including cancer stem cells. One such immunotherapy is the company’s lead product, SIRPαFc, the same product that Stiernholm was reluctant to sell believing it would inevitably drive value in the company.

“SIRPαFc blocks CD47, an extremely interesting and attractive target that is expressed not only on bulk cancer cells but also on cancer stem cells. CD47 is like a stop sign – it tells the immune system not to attack. Cancer cells overproduce this protein and use it to protect themselves from immunemediated destruction. Our drug binds CD47 and prevents it from delivering this suppressive signal, enabling the immune system to kill the tumour cells,” he explains.

The development of the SIRPαFc fusion protein originated from leading researchers in the field, including Drs. John #$%$ and Jean Wang of the University Health Network, and Dr. Jayne Danska of the Hospital for Sick Children, all of Toronto. SIRPαFc is being developed initially as a treatment for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and has recently entered formal IND-enabling studies.

“I think we have some very interesting data showing that we are indeed blocking the CD47 stop signal and activating the immune system to do what it is capable of doing – killing tumour cells.
I have a large position here and would like to know your thoughts.

3-Even though you have discussed your thoughts on SBOTF (KLH) before, the Indian Journal of Medicine has new data. Here is a paste-
Keyhole limpet hemocyanin augmented the killing activity, cytokine production and proliferation of NK cells, and inhibited the proliferation of Meth A sarcoma cells in vitro

Md. Moklesur Rahman Sarker1, Ming Zhong2
1 Department of Immunochemistry, Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsushima-naka, Kita-ku, Okayama, Japan; Clinical Investigation Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
2 Department of Immunochemistry, Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsushima-naka, Kita-ku, Okayama, Japan,

Date of Submission 24-Aug-2013
Date of Decision 29-Sep-2013
Date of Acceptance 12-Nov-2013
Date of Web Publication 16-Jan-2014
Correspondence Address:
Md. Moklesur Rahman Sarker
Department of Immunochemistry, Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsushima-naka, Kita-ku, Okayama, Japan; Clinical Investigation Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.125164

Get Permissions

» Abstract
Objective: Keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) is a popular tumor vaccine carrier protein and an immunostimulant. The present study aimed to investigate the immunoregulatory activity of KLH on cytotoxicity, cytokines production, and proliferation of natural killer (NK) cells. Moreover, antiproliferative activity of KLH on Meth A sarcoma cells was studied.
Materials and Methods: Cytotoxicity was determined with killing ability of NK cells against yeast artificial chromosome (YAC)-1 cells. Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) productions by NK cells were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Proliferations of NK and Meth A cells were determined by [ 3 H]thymidine incorporated proliferation and 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5 diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) methods, respectively.
Results: KLH at 6.25, 12.5, and 25 μg/well augmented cytotoxicity of NK cells against YAC-1 cells by 2.5, three, and five-times, respectively. KLH at 25 μg/well enhanced IFN-γ and TNF-α productions by 17- and 23-folds, respectively. The proliferation of NK cells was three times stimulated by KLH. The proliferation of Meth A cells was markedly inhibited by all the doses; the highest (4-folds higher) inhibition was observed at a dose of KLH (25 μg/well).
Conclusion: The study demonstrated the anticancer activity of KLH acting through the induction of NK cells and inhibition of cancer cells. KLH, therefore, may be a good candidate for an anticancer agent alone or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents.

Are your feelings for SBOTF getting any warmer and fuzzier? Would KLH conjugated with SIRPaFc from SCTPF make an interesting immunotherapy?

Good Dr. KSS i have no medical background and not highly educated. Your time in helping me decide to hold these postions or detract would be greatly appreciated.

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
948
George
Member
George
February 6, 2014 5:20 pm
Reply to  Randy Trier

I would discount that abstract for several reasons.
1. The journal: if it were really an important paper, a group from Japan would not be publishing there. I can’t even pull this up on pubmed nor at work (and I get pretty much everything)
2. It is really easy to kill cells in vitro (in a “test tube”). I can’t pull up the paper for a proper evaluation (see #1), but in general, it is easy to kills cells in vitro. Most just fail when they go in in humans. The translational aspects of going from a simple, controlled system to mice to humans is extremely difficult. We have been able to cure mice of cancer for decades, but in humans, not so well.

Add a Topic
1029
Add a Topic
3397
biocqr
biocqr
February 6, 2014 6:09 pm
Reply to  George

I’ve been invested in SCTPF for several months now. Stem Cell Therapuetics is the only public company with a CD47 program.. The anti-cancer effect of blocking CD47 was discovered by Dr. Irving Weissman of Stanford…

Single antibody shrinks variety of human tumors transplanted into mice, study shows
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2012/march/cd47.html

“It is the first antibody treatment shown to be broadly effective against a variety of human solid tumors, and the dramatic response — including some overt cures in the laboratory animals — has the investigators eager to begin phase-1 and –2 human clinical trials within the next two years.

“Blocking this ‘don’t-eat-me’ signal inhibits the growth in mice of nearly every human cancer we tested, with minimal toxicity,” said professor of pathology Irving Weissman, MD, who directs Stanford’s Institute of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine and the Ludwig Center for Cancer Stem Cell Research and Medicine at Stanford. “This shows conclusively that this protein, CD47, is a legitimate and promising target for human cancer therapy.”

Many cancer cells found to have an ‘eat me’ signal in study
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/december/crt-signal.html

“The characterization of the function of CD47 protein in cancer was previously published by the Stanford scientists. In the earlier work, they reported that an antibody that blocks CD47 could be a potent anti-cancer therapy. They demonstrated that the anti-CD47 antibody could eliminate disease in mice transplanted with human acute myeloid leukemia and cure a large proportion of mice with human non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma when combined with a second antibody.

Although the result was exciting, it presented a couple mysteries. “Many normal cells in the body have CD47, and yet those cells are not affected by the anti-CD47 antibody,” said Mark Chao, a Stanford MD/PhD candidate who is first author of the new paper. “At that time, we knew that anti-CD47 antibody treatment selectively killed only cancer cells without being toxic to most normal cells, although we didn’t know why.”

The researchers also questioned whether simply blocking CD47 would be enough to bring on a cell’s destruction. “It wouldn’t be likely that killing cells was the default action of the immune system,” said Ravindra Majeti, MD, PhD, assistant professor of hematology and co-principal investigator on the project. “We postulated that there had to be an ‘eat me’ signal that the cancer cells were also carrying in addition to CD47.” CRT became the leading candidate for this signal because other researchers had previously shown that CRT and CD47 work together to govern a process of programmed cell death called apoptosis.’

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
👍 2
David B.
Member
February 6, 2014 6:17 pm
Reply to  Randy Trier

Personally, I think you have two long term winners in Stellar and Stem Cell Therapeutics Randy. There is a lot of good info on each on the Stockhouse site (bullboards I think they call them) which tends to focus on Canadian listed companies. Each is on the Canadian venture exchange and each company has had great success in preclinical trials. Stellar provides KLH as you know, which acts as a catalyst for immunological agents. There are many companies utilizing KLH as the catalyst with various compounds at this point. Most of these trials are in Phase 1 or 2 at this point. They do have one of their own compounds in Phase 1 trials for C. Difficile but Dr. KSS is skeptical. Of course, even the good doc is occassionally wrong : )

Add a Topic
3932
Randy Trier
February 6, 2014 6:58 pm
Reply to  David B.

Thank you George and David for the input.

Leo S
Guest
Leo S
February 6, 2014 3:30 pm

Please can I 3rd James and Frank. Thank you so much.

arch1
February 6, 2014 5:31 pm
Reply to  Leo S

Leo 1st & 2nd James I know of from bible, pleased to meet 3rd & welcome.

👍 7797
Leo S
Guest
Leo S
February 6, 2014 3:35 pm

Sorry , in trying to be brief I appear to be fractionated.

Rosenmeyer
Rosenmeyer
February 6, 2014 3:37 pm

COQ10 is an antioxidant fwiw

👍 1407
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 3:44 pm

People on statins probably should be on CoQ10. One, although CoQ10 is made by the body, statins cause depletion. Two, CoQ10 seems to help abate the myalgia and myopathic side effects of CoQ10. A reasonable dose is probably 90-100 mg per day taken in the morning, as CoQ10 can interfere with sleep if taken after noon.

But many of the alternative crowd claims for CoQ10 are overblown.
It does not improve ability to utilize oxygen for energy manufacture by mitochondria:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22079391
It does not improve fatigue or metabolic parameters:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21370966
It has no effect on inflammatory markers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20136458

Add a Topic
3818
Add a Topic
3818
Rosenmeyer
Rosenmeyer
February 6, 2014 3:52 pm

thks Dr.KS

👍 1407
analog68
analog68
February 6, 2014 4:33 pm

Some info that may be of use. I use Hotstocked Precision and Hotstocked Penny Monitor. They are fancy tools that I am taking out for a spin to see how useful they are.
As I have taken a long position in BNIKF at .67 and .73, I was pleased to see that it has never been pumped in an email or newsletter etc. RNN, which I have also taken a small position in around $1.10, has been pumped once on Dec. 11, 2013 by Crown Equity Holdings Inc. QRXPY has never been pumped. ISCO repeatedly.

RNN appears to have a good patent pipeline, based on my reading, but I wonder if it is overpriced currently?

👍 389
arch1
February 6, 2014 4:48 pm

Dr. At some point would appreciate your thinking on cholesterol management in late life. Some comment, little change in morbidity regardless of treatment. Much more important in youth. Personal implications; developed muscle atrophy/weakness w/resultant physical injury accompanied by much myalgia. Did not know about CoQ10. Self dis-continued statins & subsequently all cholesterol.treatment. Know risks.life enjoyment much better,
have many other life risks to consider & personal thought is cholesterol is symptom not cause of plaque lesions of which I seem to be free. Philosophy: Life not permanent, don’t take too seriously. As man falling from 70th floor, passing 40th said; so far so good.
PLEASE: no-one take this as advice

Add a Topic
3820
Add a Topic
3818
Add a Topic
3820
👍 7797
arch1
February 6, 2014 4:51 pm

DR. afterthought ; We are all unique. Just like everyone else.

👍 7797
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 7:16 pm

To Randy Trier: Thanks for writing and welcome to this gang.

Stem Cell Ther (SCTPF) has, as its farthest along drug candidate, the antibiotic tigecycline. This is an approved agent already in use, and is related to doxycycline and tetracyclines. These antibiotics have gotten much attention is recent years for people looking to repurpose them, sometimes with shaky reasons. For example, there was a theory out and about, maybe 2 years ago, that doxycycline had a brain salvaging role in acute head trauma. That was disproven. Someone advanced a somewhat harebrained idea that the same drug could prevent enlargment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A drug company spent tons of cash on a large randomized trial, recently published, that showed no effect.

Tigecycline is an antibiotic that has a measure of toxicity also toward eukaryotic mitochondria. Mitochondria are small organelles within all cells that are quite like bacteria, and in fact the prevailing theory is that bacteria evolved first, and at some point, certain sorts of bacteria got very good at making ATP and also invading eukaryotic cells. A symbiotic relationship developed. The mitochondria get food, warmth and shelter, and in exchange are the exclusive makers of ATP for the cell. Cells have between 1000 and 100,000 mitochondria each, depending on their energy needs. In pre-clinical studies, tigecycline does have activity against acute myeloid leukemia cells because it poisons their mitochondria.

Tigecycline literally just finished a phase I (safety) study. It will of course pass that as it is already an approved drug. But as regards AML, there are two approaches to that. Patients either need to undergo induction of remission, aggressive chemotherapy, followed by stem cell transplant. If they are not candidates for induction or do not wish to undergo induction, the only option is maintenance salvage chemotherapy, with agents such as decitabine, sapacitabine, midostaurin and quizartinib. Maintenance does not cure. It temporizes. 24 weeks of survival would be common on maintenance. Tigecycline would have no role except in maintenance, and frankly it is hard for me to see it shining there, as it would be in combination with other agents. Alone it is not sufficiently effective based on this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3221282/#!po=52.0833

The CD-47 SIRP-alpha-Fc angle leaves me with mixed emotions. It may tinker with a macrophage pathway, but to assume that is relevant presupposes that macrophages play a big role in killing tumors. That is a good or safe assumption. There are some macrophage biologists who tend to regard macrophages as having an unwitting effect on enhancing tumor growth because they can promote angiogenesis, for example. Heavy macrophage infiltration into tumors is considered by pathologists to be a poor prognostic sign. The reasons why macrophages may augur a worse outcome are not clear but they do. By several mechanisms, they may confer apoptosis resistance on tumor cells via their secretions.

So I regard this company as much more speculative than most. Its pipeline product for interstitial cystitis is unappealing. Completion of a phase II study for tigecycline would be a minimum of 5 years away because of the difficulty of getting AML patients for a study. The SIRPalphaFx work is not even to phase I yet. So you are looking at 5-7 years before there is a material event that could move share price. I think you would be better off with the money elsewhere in the interim, with an eye toward revisiting SCPTF when it is more mature.

I will plan to post comments about SBOTF and KLH. But still as I see it, it is a reagent, and has many vulnerabilities. I concur with George that the paper looking at KLH-induced antitumor responses in mice just isn’t very compelling. SBOTF has a quite high (4.8) beta, and may shed much share price if markets overall ease down as they have been.
If KLH were really really to show promise, all it would take is an intrepid cloner with a cDNA for KLH to clone a segment of it, put that into yeast, and make kg of competing product at much cheaper prices.

Add a Topic
4517
Add a Topic
4463
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 7:18 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Typo above in the paragraph that begins “The CD-47..” It should read “That is NOT a good or safe assumption.”

Randy Trier
February 6, 2014 8:19 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

To karmaswimswami: Thanks for the welcoming and input. Your expertise and time is much
appreciated. Like most others here sign me up for your investment newsletter. The fact that so many generous and talented people are here has to be a testament as to the kind of investors Travis attracts to his site.

David B.
Member
February 6, 2014 7:59 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Sorry doc but I’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. If KLH was that easy to replicate in a lab then why hasn’t someone done this as it apparently sells for quite a bit of money already per ml. I also don’t know why so many companies would be buying KLH from Stellar and using it as their catalyst in very expensive trials if it basically a mediocre catalyst.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 8:11 pm
Reply to  David B.

Again….. opinion is opinion. If there was certainty, there would be no room for debate. You take the high road, Ill take the low road, and one of us will be in Scotland before ye.

George
Member
George
February 6, 2014 8:14 pm
Reply to  David B.

It is likely that many HAVE made it for research use but wouldn’t make it for clinical use.
They buy it instead of making it for a couple of possible reasons:
1. (Highly probable) Its cheaper. GMP material is VERY expensive and takes infrastructure.
These companies don’t have an extra $20M to toss around.
2. (Dubious) Perhaps there is something about glycosylation or or other post-translational modifications that matter.

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  
3
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x