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
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 7:17 pm

Threads within threads!!!! David, George, David b…..please remember there are newbies to the science here. Either explain what your acronims refer are all about or start your own thread where you can talk martian together.

David B.
Member
February 6, 2014 8:06 pm

Wow, Alan–sorry I don’t speak martian. KLH stands for Keyhole Limpet Hemocyanin; I’m sure that helped you out a lot. Dr. KSS uses lots of acronyms and uses many technical terms as well so let’s be fair here. If you need clarification on something just ask a question. Cheap shots are really unnecessary.

Add a Topic
3932
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 8:23 pm
Reply to  David B.

It wasnt a cheap shot. George and perhaps you have guided many first year students. Would you really expect them to be as ‘up to speed’ as the prof with his/her latest focal interest/research? GS is the first semesta for many. If you want to debate a master class….fine. But do it in a separate classroom. KSS is clearly a clever guy; but he’s taken the time/ink to educate the newbies (like me) via language and analogy. This makes me feel a part of the process. You could be just alientating the many. Great for you, but this is not YOUR thread. Start your own level 7 thread and speak Martian till youre exhausted for all i care. If it leads you to a cure for death…..whoopie; you have my admiration……but I still wont understand Martian unless you bother to interpret.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 8:32 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Please try to remember that GS is essentially an investors site…..not not not a medical debating society. Yes the prof medics, miners, tipsters comment adds great value. But try to stay focussed on investing and take your medic debating society elsewhere.

David B.
Member
February 6, 2014 8:46 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Investors don’t always agree on every point and that is what makes a market. The debates or interchanges here are related directly to the medical field and they have been quite respectful. If you want just a KSS forum with no healthy interchange then I suggest you get his email address Alan.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 9:09 pm
Reply to  David B.

NO! We want all comment, but comment that ALL can comprehend. Remember your audience….ALL of your audience. Serve them as well as KSS seems to have tried to do….thats what has has set him apart…..thats why this thread is 400 long rather than the usual 10. Some of us are dim (me) and need it spelled out one syllable at a time. Perhaps when we are up to speed we will pay back your time/ink. But if you get self serving and only aim to refine your own knowledge, you’ll lose the pack. If you cannot be bothered with educating the pack, start a level 7 thread elsewhere so that you dont waste your time and confuse us dullards.

Add a Topic
372
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 9:30 pm
Reply to  David B.

Either you just take, or you give and take

arch1
February 6, 2014 10:29 pm
Reply to  David B.

I 90% agree with Alan H —There are many languages in which I am not proficient;perhaps all. Do somehow have a little ability to decipher meaning from what I could not speak nor understand. At times inscrutability factor varies ( my best Charley Chan Imit.)

👍 7797
George
Member
George
February 6, 2014 11:42 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

no, its wasnt a cheap shot.. that was me typing quickly at work and forgetting frame.
What I ment is that sometimes proteins are changed after they are made and these changes can affect how immunogenic they are. The classic example is one of the flu proteins (HA and glycosylation.. putting some sugars on it to affect how the immune system sees it). That said, that comment really didnt have an impact on the overall point: it is easy to make KLH and many people do.

One comment on KSS and its limits (and one of the reasons good science writers are so hard to find): Often in science (and other areas) simplifying something too much makes it wrong. A really good science writer makes it only sorta wrong. Simplifying beyond a certain point often misleads (this does not apply to my above comment which was too complex). As an extreme case, think about explaining capacitors to someone who doesn’t understand electricity.
In a forum like this, one cant expect to understand everything.. even investment concepts on an investment board. Ex we haven’t gotten much into the impact of FOREX and hedging thereof on these australian companies along with the potential differential of US v AUS rates; this can play a big role in our potential profits off of many of these penny stocks but is a bit subtle and arcane. In this case, knowing a little can cause more damage than knowing nothing and taking no hedging actions.
That said, please ask for explanation; as a science professional, I expect it. I have seen more than a few very complex comments here for which no comments were made. Ask. However, I don’t think anyone should expect to understand every detail, nor do you need to.

Add a Topic
6067
Add a Topic
635
Add a Topic
6067
arch1
February 7, 2014 1:35 am
Reply to  George

George Totally agree with latter comments;Need not know everything about creator to appreciate what creation does. Capitalize C if you see fit.

👍 7797
arch1
February 7, 2014 2:52 am
Reply to  Alan Harris

Alan I am re-reading late. If you haven’t found answer to KLH if keyhole limpet attached to your boat you would call it a barnacle; KLH perhaps may be thought of as barnacle blood.

👍 7797
karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 8:52 pm

Test—I just did two postings and got bluescreened.

karmaswimswami
February 6, 2014 9:03 pm

I have just posted 5 times more comments, with references, about KLH and the post will not upload. Very strange. Will try again tomorrow. KLH is failing in trials.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 9:23 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

How come his message came thru where the others didnt? Strange.

arch1
February 6, 2014 11:23 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. I suspect it is the Evil of the Omniscient Machine you type on. My own E.O.M refuses to obey me often/always.

👍 7797
David B
Guest
February 7, 2014 1:27 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

A giant keyhole limpet must have swallowed your comments karma : )
Seriously, if you have great info re. Stellar Biotech and it looks overblown; I am all ears. There are many fans of Stellar Biotech here on Gumshoe who will be disappointed as KLH was seeming to be the “magic molecule” one of the newsletters promoted, but if it’s not the real deal then I want to know that now rather than later. I appreciate your intelligence, research and effort. I had already trimmed my position significantly in recent months so I could invest in other companies that hold promise (like Rexahn, Xencor and Medifocus), but I’m willing to trim more if the science doesn’t look nearly as promising as I thought several months back.

KennyG
Guest
KennyG
February 6, 2014 9:35 pm

Is it me or are we starting to lose the civility on this thread that has made it unique up to this point. Please….let’s not make this into a Yahoo message board and lose all the great dialogue that we have been having.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 6, 2014 9:42 pm
Reply to  KennyG

Dont worry, its just you. But somtimes you (I) have to bring it back on track.

arch1
February 7, 2014 5:50 am
Reply to  Alan Harris

Alan I think I change estimate of what I agree with you to 95%. I came late to this discussion & find much I think to ask already answered if I proper understand. I think much of what you now ask answered by your own earlier comments & I understand more your humor. I now tell you I still hold one bio-tech ECTE because I lose 90% & think have little left to risk & may now regain some. Still wallow in intense Obamacarephobia altho Dr. KKS alleviates myalgia to extent. Your comment on typing good but my Evil Omniscient Machine has mind of own about that. I think modern tech machine should bear warning “technology not yet perfected”. Smoke alarm again imitate cricket for few chirps, In daylite I will seek revenge .

👍 7797
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 7, 2014 5:09 pm
Reply to  arch1

Frank….just change the batteries. If that doesnt work (and it certainly should) simply buy a new one for $5……..your sanity must be worth more than that.

Rgs

arch1
February 7, 2014 11:23 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Alan this time I was ahead of you, already have new one; in my experience not worth replacing battery,unit usually defective. Dead unit now awaits hazardous waste tomb.
Vengeance is sweet. Always say sanity is matter of degree; grade self on +\- curve.
Thank you.

👍 7797
Jo McIntyre
February 7, 2014 1:10 am
Reply to  KennyG

It’s not just you, KennyG. Thanks for your comment.

tanglewood
February 6, 2014 9:51 pm

to frank archambeau, Leo S and James J. Franklin re; statins and supplements
Have you guys reviewed this other Gumshoe thread?
http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2013/12/the-statin-guidelines-looking-at-the-whole-cardiovascular-spectrum/

Add a Topic
3818
Add a Topic
3555
👍 644
goodgrass
goodgrass
February 6, 2014 10:05 pm

David B. Thank you for your input! You don’t owe me or anyone else a lesson in bio-science terminology. And nobody, other than Travis, has a right to tell people how they post in this forum. If you or Dr. KSS or anyone else want to spend your valuable time educating us that’s great, but I certainly don’t expect it. Alan doesn’t speak for me or this thread. If I really want to know what some acronym means I can research it myself, or at the very least ask politely. In the meantime, thanks to you, Dr. KSS and everyone else who is sharing their knowledge and experience. I hope everyone will continue to be involved as it will obviously make us all better investors.

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3932
David B
Guest
February 7, 2014 2:03 am
Reply to  goodgrass

Thank you goodgrass, much appreciated. I don’t consider myself an expert, just someone who does a lot of reading and research and has good instincts. I appreciate this forum as bouncing ideas and knowledge off one another benefits us all. Heck I think I even gave KSS a few good leads!

arch1
February 7, 2014 6:06 am
Reply to  goodgrass

goodgrass Sometimes for me research of acronyms dangerous, if turns up symptom list;causes conjecture maybe my illness. Such was case with HCV, was sure I carried but symptoms disappear when I stop statin use. Interesting perhaps?

👍 7797
arch1
February 6, 2014 11:12 pm

Tanglewood Thank you I had missed thread. Read until onset of vertigo. Liked best Myron Martin comment ” lack of statins cause cholesterol like lack of aspirin cause headache. Tried anatabloc, saw no benefit except made few pennies from stock. No longer hold. Agree anecdote not mean much, tho I know 95 year old female lifelong off-scale cholesterol,refused treatment because of side-effects very healthy tho frail. My deceased wife always low cholesterol,shared same diet over 50 years. Tried Niacin,impossible to continue after shingles onset. Would still like answer to specific question in KSS own time. TO ALL Please do not ask his opinion & argue when he kindly gives it, I greatly respect what he is doing. Even humble self at times must be productive & tear self away. Also no need for lengthy address to self ,if you feel need for same, fa suffice; Note Not FA definitely not( Financial Adviser).

Add a Topic
3818
Add a Topic
3820
Add a Topic
5971
👍 7797
sivapann
Member
sivapann
February 6, 2014 11:12 pm

Biocqr: While we are waiting on reply from Dr KSS on # 381, I passed on this concern to another expert and here is his reply:
*****************************************************************************
I am aware of the claims made by the Lisowski team. Without going into too much detail I will make the follows comments:

1) The research team which first raised the concerns about AAV8 and its suitability for transfection in the human liver are themselves continuing to use AAV8 for their haemophilia research. So what does that tell you?

2) As I understand the Lisowski et al paper is suggesting that the murine model used for testing AAV8 in the liver is flawed because AAV8 does not behave the same in humans. I have two points to make in regard to this claim:

a) TT-034 was tested in non-human primates with outstanding results yet the Lisowski paper made no reference to NHP.

b) The paper proposes a new model which uses human liver cells grafted to mouse liver cells and says that when AAV8 is introduced into this model, the vector is predominantly found in the mouse cells. This may be true but the research does not appear to rule out the possibility that when confronted with the option of infecting either a mouse or human liver cells the virus prefers mouse cells. Thus if there was no option, the vector could happily place its payload into human liver cells.

3) Models of HCV are notoriously difficult to employ because the disease only occurs in humans (and slightly in Chimps) and liver cells outside the body don’t always behave in the way they do in vivo. This has been one of the reason why many drugs have failed in clinical trials. There is therefore no guarantee that this proposed model will be any better than the others.

The only way we will know who is correct is through more clinical trials. The BNIKF scientists are confident and I do not see any reason to doubt them.
****************************************************************************

Add a Topic
3932
👍 4
arch1
February 7, 2014 1:41 am
Reply to  sivapann

Siva forgive if I use as example . Simple translation: Sometimes what we try does not work, sometimes it does. All happy? Again please excuse simple self.

👍 7797
biocqr
biocqr
February 7, 2014 10:35 am
Reply to  sivapann

Thanks Siva,

Regardless of how the Nature AAV8 trial was run, the fact remains that Dr. Kay was surprised that in the human hemophilia trial, the AAV8 dose response was 10-20 times less in humans than predicted by non-human primates studies. …

Are you suggesting they are still using AAV8 in the hemophilia because they don’t trust the results? Maybe AAV8 is still the best way to go even though it’s 10-20 times less effective.

It’s obvious Dr. Kay has changed his mind and no longer believes in AAV8….

Dr Kay: “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. 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. ”

The question is… can TT-034 still work with AAV8 if it only tranduces 5-10% of liver cells?

Add a Topic
4044
Add a Topic
4044
👍 2
arch1
February 7, 2014 1:47 am

Addition: some disease afflict humans,not other life forms. Again excuse self if offend.

👍 7797
arch1
February 7, 2014 2:23 am
Reply to  arch1

Again excuse as I imitate ‘science writer’: MAJOR FINDING patients in carcinoma remission have in common been found to have ingested quantities of di-hydrogen oxide over extended period. as a cautionary over ingestion of NaCl di-hydrogen oxide may have increased risk of morbidity whether oral or iv. intake… Translation: water good too much salt water bad. sorry may be full moon approaches & affects unruly self.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
👍 7797
David B
Guest
February 7, 2014 1:52 am

SA just had an article about a very intriguing small biotech company that focuses on immunology–Advaxis (ADXS). This company has a huge pipeline of compounds albeit mainly preclinical. They even have a couple veterinary compounds for you animal lovers. Has anyone done DD on this company? The author on SA believes that 2014 and beyond will be great for capital appreciation. This one would take patience as only one compound is in Stage 2 of trials so there are years to go before any decent income. The SA author thinks it will be taken over (Novo Nordisk was mentioned as a possible suitor!) but I think that’s likely wishful thinking on his part. I’m a fan of immunology so I’m definitely intrigued.

Add a Topic
996
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
February 7, 2014 5:36 am

Thank you Frank. In fact I did read the dedicated KLH GS thread “Minting Millions from the Magic Molecule” some while ago. It seemed that was a better place to focus on the narrow detail of KLH.
Also: Thanks George. I accept what you say…..it is difficult to simplify the complex, which risks trivialising and misleading. No offence was intended and as Goodgrass #407 says, no individual owns this thread. I was just trying to get us back to reletively simple investing.

arch1
February 7, 2014 10:19 am
Reply to  Alan Harris

Alan I deserve no thanks as I was submitting semi-educated deducing from knowledge
‘limpet’ & ‘hemo’. I think you fuller informed than self.

👍 7797
Frenchy
Frenchy
February 7, 2014 7:17 am

Sorry for the blast from the past but regarding post #22, has anyone found out whether Medifocus still derives income from Prolieve or has it in fact gone to Boston Sci? My time is limited here in Afg and have not had time to research this. I was just wondering whether someone had and if it is still a good time to jump in at this point? Sincere thanks to Dr KSS and everyone for your professional and personal inputs. Been following everyone since day 1 and this thread has become my birth in the bio tech world.

Add a Topic
996
Add a Topic
3932
David B.
Member
February 7, 2014 11:34 am
Reply to  Frenchy

Medifocus now has the exclusive rights to the Prolieve System Frenchy: “c’est vrai.”

Frenchy
Frenchy
February 9, 2014 7:46 am
Reply to  David B.

Merci David:)

Jim t.
Jim t.
February 7, 2014 8:48 am

Given all of the discussion on HCV, does anyone have an opinion on Organovo (ONVO), the 3-D printing company focused on producing functional human tissues for medical research. Their main thrust is liver tissue, and the promise for the technology is at least in part the increased ease, cost, and speed of preclinical testing on compounds meant to combat liver diseases. Very SCi-FI, it seems, but very real. They did just miss on revenue so the price is down some. Anyone have insight or interest? Thanks … JT

Add a Topic
2850
Frenchy
Frenchy
February 7, 2014 10:19 am
Reply to  Jim t.

Jim, ONVO does not yet have “real revenue” to speak of at the moment. I believe the price is mostly based on the expectation as to how many big pharma will be knocking at its door if their recent delivery of the first 3D liver tissue does well with Key Opinions Leaders (KOL) in trials. If effective, this method of testing on live tissue would save a bundle for the industry. Their 3D liver tissue was also delivered 3 months ahead of schedule which bodes well for the company and incidentally, their time line has drastically sped up so all point towards good news so far. Personally, I am bullish on the stock but keep in mind that one factor playing a role in the current volatility is the ongoing threat of dilution to shareholders. According to the Form 8-K filed on Nov. 27, Organovo recently entered into an agreement with JMP Securities. The agreement entitles Organovo with the ability to sell up to 4,000,000 shares of common stock from time to time through “at the market” offerings. As of Sept. 30, Organovo had 76,818,625 shares of common stock outstanding.
PS: I am simply a shareholder and have zero knowledge of the intricacies of how different drug testing on a 3D liver tissue would differ from human trials but to me, I am sure big pharma would jump a the occasion to skip a few steps if legally possible…

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
David B.
Member
February 7, 2014 11:36 am
Reply to  Frenchy

Good info Frenchy. In my opinion OnVO is overhyped and over valued–too big of a downside risk with that one.

karmaswimswami
February 7, 2014 9:00 am

Further musing about keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) and Stellar (SBOTF).
As discussed here in fulltext, KLH has been regarded as an immune stimulant in animals since the sixties.
http://www.upch.edu.pe/facien/fc/dbmbqf/zimic/cursos/modelamiento%202005/articulos/25%20Proteinas%20de%20fusi%C3%B3n%20y%20vacunas/KHL%20sdarticle.pdf
Vertebrates have two kinds of flowing fluids, blood and lymph. Invertebrates have one, and it is thus designated hemolymph. KLH is not dissimilar to many oxygen-carrying copper-based hemolymphs found in marine invertebrates. There is no theoretical or special reason these should have roles as immune potentiators other than that they are quite unlike any mammalian proteins and so are recognized as foreign and responded to.

In medicine, KLH has three (potential) roles. It provides a means of testing for schistosomiasis, a third-world parasitic infestation with liver, bladder and nervous system consequences (it is a disease I am deeply familiar with because of its liver ramifications). Schistosomiasis is largely being eliminated by medicaments in infected people and by the cleaning up of waterways.

KLH has been examined for a role in potentiating immune responses in bladder cancer, particularly as it may be preferable to BCG treatments. Because of its large number of amino acid sidechains, it has appeal as a template to which to attach antigens.

But beyond these niceties, I am not sure things are looking so good for clinical applicability of KLH. A systematic review of all clinical trials for it shows that several are finished but have not released data, shows many that terminated for lack of efficacy, shows many with null results, and shows almost no new trials planned.

Phase III: a ganglioside-KLH adduct did not improve outcomes as a therapeutic vaccine in melanoma:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24019551

A KLH-based immunotherapy for esophageal cancer failed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735809

KLH therapy is less effective than mitomycin for preventing bladder cancer relapse:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22585689

A KLH-based immunotherapy approach failed for relapsed osteosarcoma:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22484634

A phase III immunotherapy trial of a mucin-like antigen couple with KLH showed no benefit in metastatic breast cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21572124

A KLH-based approach for therapeutic vaccination against HIV failed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19450647

I am here deliberately looking at recent trials. More than 5 years ago, the main KLH studies were looking at safety. Regimens constructed around KLH are safe, non-toxic. But now we are moving more into efficacy trials. And things do not look so good.

I do feel strongly that if things ever began looking really bright for KLH, which I predict won’t happen, SBOTF will become quite vulnerable. Earlier in this thread I posted studies of a hemolymph from a Chilean mollusk that appears to have greater efficacy than KLH and may not have the small biopshere confinement that keyhole limpets have (though SBOTF is using aquaculture). KLH is a didecamer, a 20-mer. The monomer pieces encoded by the genes KLH1 or KLH2 (known sequences) are small enough that they easily could be made via insertion of a cloned cDNA into a yeast or tissue-culture system. The courts have established that no one owns genes, and so this is another liability for SBOTF.

As regards KLH and a C. diff vaccine, I really would not hold my breath. Sanofi now has a C. diff toxoid vaccine in phase III trials and things are looking good. Others have tried and failed at developing such a vaccine because in theory it should be quite difficult. The only sort of antibody that gets into the GI tract is IgA. When C. diff infects a patient, it is doing so in the context of teeming millions of bacteria of other species. And even though an antibody may get into the gut, that by no means indicates it can kill C. diff. It may just bind to the bacteria and the bacteria carry on. Antibody binding doesn’t mean much unless there is then a mechanism for clearance or targeted destruction. In the lumen of the gut, as opposed to in tissues or the blood, that may prove quite challenging.

So, anyway, I would encourage people not to be long SBOTF.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
5187
Add a Topic
3397
arch1
February 7, 2014 10:14 am
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr; may I also call to attention similar substance as KlH extracted from horse-shoe crabs in apparently unlimited quantities since extraction does not kill them . Similar to blood donors.

👍 7797
arch1
February 7, 2014 10:30 am
Reply to  arch1

Musing; as answer to anti-oxidant advocates perhaps KLH carry Oxidant to oxidize & kill C.diff? sorry.

👍 7797
David B.
Member
February 7, 2014 12:10 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Thank you Dr. KSS. I’m stubborn but not stupid. I don’t agree with you 100% regarding KLH but the disappointing trial results and your points regarding the C. Diff. vaccine have me convinced that SBOTF does not have the big upside I thought it had and I just sold my shares. “Know when to hold them, know when to fold them.”

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
1278
Roblites
Roblites
February 7, 2014 10:37 am

Jim T. I sold ONVO recently. Bot $2 and sold $9. Bot because I thought it is/was the cheapest most interesting 3D play but had not idea about its overvalue in the 10’s until I read Seeking Alpha article by ZACK’s, Jason Napodano, who I follow closely and respect. He recently gave his picks for 2014 and called out a sell on ONVO. Go to SA put ONVO in search box and you can go to this article. It would be worth while if only to be familiarized with Jason’s work.
I want to beat the drum concerning Innate Pharm, French Co. (USA BB stock IPHYF) which I brought up as a game changer to someone on this board looking for immunotherapy stocks. Dr. KSS made observation and is impressed. Yesterday I picked up a Twitter from one of my 165 “closest friends” (sure) I follow, that Goldman Sachs put out recommendation 2-4-2014 with following title, “Combo immune checkpoint therapy to unlock multi-billion dollare opportunity. text: Innate Pharma: Early data supports Lirilumab’s potential in AML, solid tumors and combo therapy….2014-2015 75% chance of = 500% upside.”
Pretty BULLY stuff for Goldman. I own and am buying more.

Add a Topic
3551
Add a Topic
665
Add a Topic
5971
Roblites
Roblites
February 7, 2014 10:56 am

PS. IPHYF: I paid $60 commission for buy which, to be more precise, is for “over the counter markets” trade. Not my usual $ 7.95.

David B.
Member
February 7, 2014 12:02 pm
Reply to  Roblites

Thanks for the lead Roblites–I am the immunotherapy fan and this French company does look very good. They already have deals with Novo Nordisk and Bristol Myers Squibb and both of these companies are very smart and very interested in immunotherapy.
Based on Dr. KSS’s info on KLH trials and your lead, I just sold my SBOTF and bought IPHYF. By the way Roblites, with Scottrade I believe I only paid $7 for the trade–no additional $60 commission.

Add a Topic
5187
Add a Topic
5187
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 7, 2014 12:20 pm
Reply to  David B.

Innate pharma has had an impressive run from $3ish to $13ish during the past three months. Is it still a buy now or should we wait for a pullback?

thoughts David, Dr, KHH, Roblites, or anyone long Innate 🙂

👍 673
David B.
Member
February 7, 2014 7:27 pm

You are absolutely correct Subra re. the run up, but I think Innate can run quite a bit more. I’m not a great market timer but I did buy it today on about a 2% dip. You could put in a limit order to buy at a lower price and hope for it to fill. I wouldn’t go any lower than 11.50 as you could miss the next run up. Personally, if I like something enough to buy I just get in and ride the wave. The most important thing is buying the right company.

Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 8, 2014 11:48 am
Reply to  David B.

I will get in even if it cools off to mid 12s. Thanks David!

👍 673
Leo S
Guest
Leo S
February 7, 2014 11:49 am

I don’t know what locked me out but everything is cool again. My handle has reverted to the original and I am able to access this thread again. Tanglewood, yes I have seen that thread on new statin guidelines but thank you for thinking of us .

karmaswimswami
February 7, 2014 11:54 am

Siva and biocqr: As to the objections raised regarding TT-034, AAV8 and liver transfection/transduction efficacy, I have doubts about the doubts raised by Kay and others. I have mentioned some of these earlier in this growing thread, but will iterate and recap.

First, the statement “10-20 times less” for hemophilia B transduction efficacy than predicted with nonhuman primate trials makes no sense to me. A number can be x times greater than predicted. It cannot be x times less than predicted for x greater than or equal to 1. In the human hemophilia B trials, where an AAV8 was used, 4 of 6 patients displayed enough factor IX expression to go off factor IX concentrates. It it disingenuous to assert that perhaps only 10 per cent of hepatocytes were infected. The only way to quantify what proportion of hepatocytes was infected is by liver biopsy followed by in situ hybdridization. Obviously no liver biopsy can be done on any hemophilia patient because exsanguination would result. Meanwhile, in the TT-034 trial, liver biopsies wiill be done and this will allow quantitative assessment of how many liver cells got transfected, and how many were transduced into manufacturing shRNA. But to assert that only 10 per cent of human hepatocytes in a human liver are transduced? There is not an iotum of data to support that contention. An absolute worst case scenario for Benitec is that they simply put the expression cassette into a different AAV and repeat the trial. Which AAV that would be is debatable. AAV2 has appeal except that many have immunity to it and it is highly immunogenic after administration.

Our data set about those human patients transfected with an AAV8 containing a factor IX gene are incomplete. If the contention is that they should have expressed far higher levels of factor IX, well, based on what? That was one study, with one promoter in front of the factor IX gene. Results could easily be enhanced merely by installing a different promoter. And this is but one factor among many.

Part of the basis for Kay’s objection is the Lisowski recent paper in Nature. Let me emphasize again: this looked at mice with livers that are mouse/human chimeras. They have a mixture of mice and human cells. No cells fuse; the different species’ cells commingle. I need to emphasize how new this method is. It is very new, and how it is achieved is by taking mutant mice, exploiting that mutation to kill off some of their hepatocytes, and then infusing human hepatocytes into them as repopulating cells. The technique is discussed in considerable depth here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136240/
Those mice require continuous administration of a drug to offset effects of the mutation that allows them to be used, and for all we know this drug may be damaging the human liver cells. The method is too new for us to know yet. For all we know, something unanticipated may be going on. NO explanation has been given for why mice do not attack the human cells in those chimeric livers. Are the mice coating those cells with antibody and making them inaccessible for transfection?

At present many many things are unknown about how the human cells in these chimeric livers behave as regards their immunology and transfectability. What IS known is that there are NOT normal livers. Normal livers have extraordinarily complex morphology: there are hepatocyte sheets punctuated by portal venules and hepatic arterioles; those merge and form central venules to coalesce into a central vein. There are cholangioles, which are bile ductules, that coalesce into bigger ducts. There are sinusoids, and Kupffer cells (macrophages). RIGHT NOW, there is evidence that for the human cells in these chimeric livers, they are NOT accompanied by normal hepatic architecture at all. Their perfusion, their access to endothelial cells, their exposure to macrophages and lymphocytes is QUITE different from that of the mouse cells that were already in that liver. So to me it is quite misleading to assert globally that this proves AAV8 is ineffective for transducing human hepatocytes. It speaks only for THIS system, where those human hepatocytes are quite possibly not being normally perfused and patrolled, where their exposure to all the cells tyoes present in a normal liver is very much not normal. NONE of the data from this study can legitimately inferred to be evidence that AAV8 will fail in the TT-034 trial.

Add a Topic
4044
Add a Topic
4044
Add a Topic
4044
Subramania Kaushik
Subramania Kaushik
February 7, 2014 12:21 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. KHH your indepth knowledge in biotech space has been very helpful to all of us. I guess we all are getting educated by the day! Thanks a lot!

👍 673
arch1
February 7, 2014 1:13 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. thank you for writing in way I can understand,esp.as to chimera. I had visions of mice being impregnated with genes of North Korea touring B.B. player. All this has left me unsure of what you think of investing & even what in. My fault not yours,much to absorb.

Add a Topic
276
👍 7797
bludolphint
February 7, 2014 1:06 pm

Tekmira has had a nice run to date so far for me, but I am wondering if there technology is good enough to keep the momentum in price going. RNA CO. thanks for a comment or opinion.

👍 188

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  
12
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x