What’s Oxford Club’s $25 Billion “Miracle Molecule?”

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, October 14, 2015

This pitch is not all that tough to decipher for those who are seasoned biotech investors, but it’s generating a lot of questions for us today so I thought we’d get a quick answer out for you — it’s certainly a stock that gets plenty of attention, so you won’t need much of a head start on your research from yours truly on this one.

The pitch is that there’s a “Miracle Molecule” which will save millions of lives, and that one company has “exclusive patent rights” — which doesn’t narrow it down all that much, that’s the promise of “miracle molecules” from hundreds of biotech companies… but the Oxford Club folks are claiming that this one is “an easy triple,” so let’s narrow it down for yo.

The ad starts with a comparison to arguably the biggest lifesaver in medical history…

“Penicillin completely reshaped human history…

“There was hardly a condition it couldn’t treat….

“That fateful day in the lab single-handedly launched billion-dollar biotech giants we know today as Pfizer (up 3,550%), Merck (up 3,456%) and Bristol-Myers Squibb (up 2,929%).

“Yet the discovery of penicillin pales in comparison to what you’re about to see…

“An elite group of scientists has recently uncovered something exponentially bigger… the profit potential is immense.

“I call it the ‘miracle molecule’…”

We even get a look at the chemical formula for this “miracle molecule” … as if the chemical formula will mean anything to most of us (though it can help to confirm the drug they’re talking about, for those of us who like to dot our i’s).

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


More on that “miracle” …

“How This $25 Billion “Miracle Molecule” Came Into Existence…

“This is not some one-in-a-million biotech that’s hinging on FDA approval or hoping to get lucky.

“This molecule is proven to work… and the cure rates on the first disease it’s treating get better and better by the day.

“In Baltimore, Johns Hopkins researchers at the Division of Infectious Diseases discovered a cure rate of 98%.

“The next set of clinical trials in New Haven, Connecticut, used the “miracle molecule” in a two-part therapy process… it cured 100% of its patients in an average of seven weeks.

“The company itself has confirmed a 100% cure rate in trials.”

And they include lots of little diagrams and images to try to explain now this company’s “miracle molecules” work to destroy viruses.

“Infected cells are constantly on “seek and destroy missions.” They attack your cells and replicate throughout the day….

“However, the “miracle molecule” stops the replication process.

“It acts like a double agent, concealing itself as though it’s already been infected.

“Camouflaged, it can slip past the virus, and stop the infected cells from replicating….

“In as little as 30 days, people are seeing diseases completely disappear from their blood…”

And we’re told that this company is a “sleeping giant” — and an “easy triple” … some more clues for you:

“First of all, insurance companies love the ‘miracle molecule.’

“You see, they pay billions of dollars per year treating chronic diseases like cancer, hepatitis C, cardiovascular disease and HIV.

“But often the treatments only manage the diseases.

“So the treatments essentially go on forever. And the bills never stop piling up.

“But a true cure like the “miracle molecule” can actually help people become truly healthy again.

“And healthy people are cheap for insurance companies.

“So although the ‘miracle molecule’ is expensive upfront, insurance companies are happy to pay for it.

“When you add up the medical expenses for 30,000 NEW patients a month… insurance companies are paying quite a bit to the one company behind it.

“It comes out to $30.2 billion in new revenue for the company I’m talking about today.

“That alone could double the stock.

“But with 36 drugs in its pipeline, we could easily see this sort of revenue explosion again and again… even if just a handful of those 36 drugs pass FDA approval.

“That’s why we believe this stock is an easy triple.”

I know what you’re thinking — $30.2 billion in new revenue, and the stock only doubles because of that? This must be a gigantic company. And it is, here Oxford Club is teasing: Gilead Sciences (GILD), maker of Sovaldi (which is the Hepatitis C drug whose chemical formula matches the “miracle molecule”) and Harvoni.

GILD is indeed, as teased, on track to maybe having the best-selling drug in the world as the needs of millions of HCV sufferers are finally met, and is expanding quickly across the globe — though I don’t know that it’s gospel that “insurance companies love the ‘miracle molecule.'” There is obviously a strong argument to be made for stopping Hepatitis C before it becomes even more expensive for insurers, but governments and some insurance companies are also balking at the high cost of Sovaldi and Harvoni and the other new HCV drugs from Gilead and others. Often, these drugs — solely because of their very high cost — are available only with preapproval, or are being restricted to patients who are already in desperate straits with cirrhosis or other serious HCV complications or symptoms (many of the people who have Hepatitis C have lived with it for decades and are arguably not yet in crisis, and millions likely don’t yet know that they have the virus). The big price tag for these drugs, which are widely acknowledged to be fantastically (or miraculously, if you prefer) effective, has also really primed the pump for the more recent debates about drug profiteering and price controls, helping to bring down stocks throughout the biotech sector.

So it’s not an easy answer like “miracle cure equals huge payday” — Gilead has grown to this point largely because of the huge HCV market and the promise of Sovaldi and Harvoni, and they are indeed generating huge revenue numbers right now. The market cap is now, after a bit of a dip along with most biotechs over the last couple months, down to about $145 billion after peaking at $175 billion back in June. Sales hit about $25 billion last year and are expected to be $31 billion this year, with analysts forecasting $31 billion in 2016… so while they have a couple hot drugs that are selling hugely well, and ramping up sales perhaps faster than any other drug in history, they’re a substantial amount of skepticism, it appears, about whether or not they’ll be able to turn that into more growth.

Which is why GILD looks awfully cheap on a PE basis, particularly for an exciting, headline-generating biotech stock — it’s only trading for 10X earnings, and they don’t have any debt to speak of… and they also have a fully-stocked pipeline of other drugs in development. The worry, really, is that once you’ve got your huge payday from curing HCV in this giant wave of sales for Sovaldi and Harvoni, what’s next? And if insurers really use the huge ticket price of those drugs (and the rage over the much less justifiable prices of many drugs from other companies) to play hardball on pricing, or the government ends up actually getting involved and instituting drug price controls for Medicaid or Medicare patients, then the profits could be substantially lower than expected.

I don’t know much about Gilead’s pipeline, and I can rarely offer any wisdom on biotech stocks in general — Dr. KSS, who leads biotech discussions for the Irregulars, has spoken kindly of Gilead in the past, partly because of the promise of their pipeline. They do have the luxury of funding the pipeline with the huge revenue spikes from their Hepatitis C drugs in recent years, and probably for at least the next few years, so if their compounds for cancer, other liver diseases, etc., do continue to show promise they’ll have some potential to grow — it’s hard, though, to build on a blockbuster without there being a bit of a letdown if and when the initial sales surge falters, either because the pent-up demand for the treatment has been sated or because the pricing is unsustainable.

The big cash surge from Sovaldi and Harvoni has investors speculating about what Gilead will do to keep moving the ball down the field — will they just invest in their current pipeline, or buy some small biotechs to create more potential growth avenues, or do some sort of large, transformative deal? I have no idea, but GILD is likely to be quite volatile — especially for a company of this size — as we watch and wonder what they’ll do with this Hepatitis C cash windfall, and as the drug pricing debate percolates in the leadup to next year’s elections. Should be interesting to watch, and you certainly could see GILD shares triple — you could justify that by comparing it to most any profitable biotech stock, just using price/sales numbers or PE ratios. I’d be surprised if that happened anytime soon, particularly given the heebie-jeebies torturing the biotech market these days, but, well, damned if I know.


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.

32 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
chuck
Member
chuck
October 14, 2015 5:10 pm

Travis: Am a bit puzzled by the performance of GiLD stock, Bought in June of this year and am down approximately 14% so far. So when did your “buddies” at Oxford Club say this wonderful stock would at least have a valuation where it was bought in June? It does not seem that all of this speculation has done much for the stock price.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
366
Add a Topic
5971
DrKSSMDPhD
October 14, 2015 5:40 pm

Chuck: I will try to speak to that. It is by any means of reckoning a wonderful company, and yet has underperformed for the last 12 months by any traditional metric: P/E, P/E/G. One reason for this is that despite the pretty penny its HCV treatments command, these bother the market because each successful treatment dereplenishes the pool: it’s one less patient who will need treatment. Second, although it’s HCV medicines have been good, in fact ledipasvir is not an excellent NS5A inhibitor. Though it has a better one coming to market, others, particularly Merck, have caught up. Merck’s HCV drugs are very very good, and BMY’s daclatasvir may be the best in class NS5A. Its HBV program has been fatuously weak.

I am long GILD for these reasons: it has serious firepower in its pipeline. Its agent simtuzumab will be an anti-fibrotic blockbuster, I believe. Also, clearly it intends to make a big footprint in cancer, and is likely to do landscape-upsetting acquisitions in that space. Three, it has the best management in biotech. Mgmt are admittedly quite arrogant, I agree, and sometimes hubris sets you up for a fall, but thus far they have avoided that.

Biotech markets are badly spooked now, such that all news good or bad moves share prices down. Things were not helped by Mrs. Clinton’s excellent performance last night in the debates, which revealed her to be the sole credible Dem candidate. But I feel that in 1Q16 we’ll see share price return to form. I regard it as among the safest biotech investments, and that says a lot in the present environment.

Add a Topic
3397
👍 47658
chuck
Member
chuck
October 14, 2015 6:47 pm
Reply to  DrKSSMDPhD

Thank your prompt and comprehensive reply. While I am down significant % with Gild — it was worse earlier on and I did consider selling and moving on, but hung-on just to see what would happen. Don’t quite have the ability to judge investor sentiment — am into such things as P/E. PEG, P/CF and discounted cash flow. Also, don’t have the technical insight for evaluating announced new drug company products — am an electrical engineer by trade. Find your analysis very useful, but don’t act on them very often . Again thanks for your reply.

dcohn
Irregular
October 14, 2015 7:01 pm
Reply to  DrKSSMDPhD

Hey Doc,
I know this is surely wildly controversial. I am NOT posting this to push it out to people. I truly mean that. I posted it for one reason, to hear your opinion on it.
https://go.thetruthaboutcancer.com/
My opinion is irrelevant in this context and will not even say whether I agree or disagree.
Would love to hear your thoughts after you watch it or if you will watch it. If you ignore this I understand 100%. You are a busy man and have much to do. This is depressing if nothing.

👍 218
DrKSSMDPhD
October 14, 2015 7:49 pm
Reply to  dcohn

The mainstream doesn’t profess to have all the answers. This is why the research annual budget of my former home, MD Anderson Cancer Center, is greater than the entire medical research expenditures yearly in total for the nation of Canada. But the answer does not lie in shamans, perps, pseuds and quacks. I have squared off against one of the people in this video, Stanislaw Bruzynski, in person. He is a sociopathic monster. Ditto for Matthias Rath, who is probably insane in a formal clinical sense. Joseph Mercola is a scam artist of rare proportions who will likely end up in jail. These people are financial predators spinning mass webs of deceit. They are in possession of no truth, and hide behind labyrinths of pseudoscientific lies and quack remedies all with hefty pricetags.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
1340
Add a Topic
1515
👍 47658
Patricia
Member
October 14, 2015 9:32 pm
Reply to  DrKSSMDPhD

Wow – I’m not familiar with the others mentioned but in regards to Dr. Joseph Mercola, you are way out of line. So many people, including some I know personally, have experienced vastly improved health in following his recommendations. They include the registered nurse who first told me about him in 2008. Our family doctor knows Mercola personally and thinks him a good man. But then, our family doctor is more interested in the actual causes of cancer than in profiting from biotech’s stream of treatments. Pursuing only treatments, rather than cures, is where the money is.

Oddly enough, the cancer answer is already clear for anyone who cares to look. Smoking is known to “cause” cancer, thousands of chemical compounds are known to “cause” cancer. Maps of the countries (and in the U.S., the states) which have the highest rates of cancer corresponds to their degree of industrialization – in other words, the more toxic substances people are exposed to, the more cancers they get.

So is a cancer patient tested to discover the level of toxins in his body? Are steps taken to rid his body of them as quickly as possible? Is every effort made to strengthen his body’s immune system and enable it to defeat the cancer with maximum nutrition, a lot of sunshine (to generate vitamin D production), and exercise? Does anyone bother to find out if he’s miserable at home (depression degrades the immune system), and will only recover when he’s separated from the wife who’d like to see him dead (more common than most think)? Usually it’s No, No, No, and No – not under present “standards of care.” Instead, a condition which is primarily caused by an accumulation of toxins the body can’t process and eliminate, is treated by adding MORE toxins to the mix. Brilliant.

I.Q. often has little to do with rational thinking, which depends first upon recognizing the fundamentals of any subject: that includes the subject of health. I’d wager your I.Q. is 20 points or more above mine Doctor, and that of most Gumshoe readers, but I’m a fundamentals person myself. I’ve seen people suffer horribly with cancers, people I loved, and I’ve also seen people recover from them using approaches you are dismissing here. So yes, I’m a little angry at the moment. The medical profession, along with some other professions (banking, law, and politics come to mind) has been corrupted to the point that decent people who practice them get caught up in the deeply embedded lies and defend them. I have seen you be courageous and go after charlatans who really deserve it. Dr. Mercola is not one of them.

What is not even being sought by research (causes/cures) will not be found. We need more medical research funded by the public, foundations, and wealthy individuals which is seeking only truth and not profitable treatments.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
👍 689
Steve
Guest
Steve
October 14, 2015 10:41 pm
Reply to  Patricia

I have been a Dr. Mercola follower for years and I have benefitted greatly from his recommendations. He is not the quack that the traditional medical field tries to portray him. He comes out with helpful information years ahead of what Western medicine provides. I believe it is the fact traditional Western Medicine is dependent on a pill for every ill, (that simply masks conditions and requires additional medications for the side effects), rather than focus on prevention by following healthy practices. Alternative medicine won’t make the billions of dollars for Big Pharma which is why you see Dr. KSS portraying Dr. Mercola as a hack.

Add a Topic
3932
BJI
Member
BJI
October 15, 2015 11:32 pm
Reply to  Patricia

“our family doctor is more interested in the actual causes of cancer than in profiting from biotech’s stream of treatments”
How much did you pay Dr. Mercola? The other “alternative” treatment providers?

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
372
Patricia
Member
October 16, 2015 7:57 pm
Reply to  Patricia

Not sure what you mean BJI. I have no relationship with Mercola other than having been a subscriber of his emails for seven years, and I find his information helpful most of the time. I don’t agree with him about everything – I think he probably goes too far in his objections to vaccines, for example. The only $ of mine that’s gone his way is for his brand of multivites, which I trust and have had good results from.

I always defend someone who is being attacked unfairly, and I’ve defended Dr. KSS when HE was being attacked without good reason. It annoys me when good people trash each other just because they disagree. Dr. KSS and Dr. Mercola both want good outcomes for their patients, they simply have very different views about how to accomplish that.

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3932
👍 689
dcohn
Irregular
October 18, 2015 7:30 pm
Reply to  DrKSSMDPhD

Parts of it are quite controversial. The part that got me was the the supposed story that no oncologist would allow their own family members to take Chemo. This seemed just too far gone for me.
But what is quite scary is that they claim if you take Chemo meds, but do not have cancer, it will cause cancer. Is the relevant?
They also stated (and stated in a way that made it sound like a problem) that anyone that works on Chemo drugs must wear Hazmat suits because of the danger of the drugs. They go on to say that less than 3% of people treated with Chemo live more than 5 years.
Lastly, of course, they add something that even the FDA admits (so I read though have not researched myself so I have no facts) that properly used medications kill more than 2.5 million people per decade. That seems like a lot of deaths from prescribed drugs.
Again I am asking and please I swear I am not trying to lead you anywhere. I truly respect your opinions as it is very clear you care very much for your patients and would not be a part of anything destined to hurt your patients. It is because of my experience with you here on this site that I am asking your opinion. IE I trust you.
The story regarding Rockefeller, Carnegie and his cronies creating the AMA as a money machine is also quite disturbing and I do not trust that group of people as far as I can throw a car. I understand the story is that quacks were cheating people and they were stopping the horrors. But looking at the current heal