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.

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
January 23, 2014 4:32 pm

Nothing to do with this mainstream thread so entirely off topic….but one or two have asked about my music biz remenicences. See GS discussions area re Music biz….nothing to do with investing. Bye

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 23, 2014 4:56 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris
karmaswimswami
January 23, 2014 5:37 pm

Halozyme is an intriguing, maybe a vexing, situation. A director bought 100,000 shares last August, but execs are not buying. I do believe in following these insider movements. A few years ago, there was an interesting company called Inspire Therapeutics that was making products for dry eye, keratoconjunctiviitis sicca. Frankly, the science did not impress me. It wasn’t bad science, it was just so-what science on a non-life threatening disease. An exec got loans to buy, no kidding, $40 million worth of shares, and that is when and why I bought. At the time it was the SEC’s largest insider purchase on record. Their lead drug flopped badly in a critical trial and the stock fell like a lead balloon. But still, $40 million…..I held on. Merck came in and swooped up the company, and that was an easy 200 per cent gain in less than a year. The exec knew the acquisition was coming. There has been lots of insider buying in recent years at Halozyme. Frankly, the pipeline makes me yawn. They are coming up with products to modify the extracellular matrix in cancer. Perturbances in ECM are a manifestation of cancer, sure, but I have doubts that modulating them will alter the course of cancer. Such interventions could limit local metastasis. But I have doubts that they will make a big difference in outcomes. So, I do not know. I have put it on a watch list. They ran way up last year….like nearly everything else in the biotech world. I wouldn’t buy here.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
George
Member
George
January 23, 2014 6:41 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

The insiders already own a huge amount, so I don’t expect much buying outside of the new CEO. The modification of the pancreatic cancer ECM (extra-cellular matrix) is just a useful sidelight of the platform, not its primary use. However, it could drive significant sales, if it allows the current agents to work in pancreatic. Intratumoral concentrations of cancer drugs and the immune response are shockingly low due to the ECM. The drug work well ex-vivo (they kill the tumor cells), it is just the ability to get them into the cells. Outside of pancreatic, ECM modification isn’t much of an issue… but there is a reason why so many of the companies out there, including many discussed, are working on pancreatic: significant unmet need and reasonable population… i.e. profit potential. Not bad for a sidelight project in the portfolio. This stock is low risk, very volatile and reasonably liquid. The run-up had been due to approvals and increased revenue: a legitimate reason for a run up.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
5971
karmaswimswami
January 23, 2014 6:40 pm

To Don Barrett: Believe it or not, I invested in the early 90’s in the company that developed the green-laser prostate ablative technique. I am momentarily blanking on its name. At the time, the studies of it had absolutely brilliant results. Excellent symptomatic relief of the symptoms of prostatism, which can really quite literally drive sufferers mad from sleep deprivation owing to nocturia, but with so much less carnage than TURP. At the time, Medicare decided NOT to cover it for reasons I did not understand and that stunned everyone. I am not sure which company owns this tech now. But it really is a great procedure, with faster recovery than from TURP or TUIP, and with so much lower complication rates. TURP has a stricturing risk that, as I understand, is not found with the greenlight methodology. To be blunt, if you saw a video of what goes on in TURP, if would probably make you faint (it does me). But I think you have been given good advice and I would go for it. As with other things we have discussed here, what we need as investors are entity-specific ETF’s. There should be a prostate ETF. But If I had what you are describing, I would definitely choose PVP, photovaporization, what is being suggested for you, over all other methods. You may have seen this user’s guide to prostate interventions:

http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/enlarged-prostate/surgery.html

Add a Topic
4454
Add a Topic
4454
Add a Topic
900
Don Barrett
Irregular
Don Barrett
January 23, 2014 8:00 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

How does one thank someone for peace of mind. Alas, a heartfelt thank you will have to suffice.

Don

jamespaul108
jamespaul108
January 28, 2014 9:50 am
Reply to  Don Barrett

from http://www.lef.org: “Writing in an article published online on October 5, 2012 in the
journal Carcinogenesis, German and Italian researchers report an anti-metastatic effect
for curcumin, a compound that occurs in the spice turmeric, in an animal model of
prostate cancer.

“Previous experimentation by the team uncovered an inhibitory effect for curcumin against the expression of pro-inflammatory immunomodulator cytokines that include CXCL1 and CXCL2, which are associated with breast cancer metastases. The current research found a similar inhibitory action for curcumin in prostate carcinoma cells via inhibition of nuclear factor kappa-beta (NFkB). Upon testing curcumin in a mouse model of prostate cancer, a significant decrease in lung metastases was observed. ”

Probably a small effect. But why not add it to whatever you are doing. Caution: too much makes food bitter.

Add a Topic
5226
Add a Topic
4454
Add a Topic
3397
👍 37
Don Barrett
Irregular
Don Barrett
March 3, 2014 6:35 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. Karmaswimswami,

I had my Green Light Laser on January 30, but am still taking Uribel for the burning. Will I have to take this for life; will it get better?
If there are things I should know, I am happy to reimburse you for a phone consult.
Sorry list for being way off topic, but I am troubled and am desperate for advice I can truly trust.

Don Barrett

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
March 3, 2014 7:10 pm
Reply to  Don Barrett

Don, I (we all) feel for you and thank God we dont feel like you. Can I suggest yu repost this to front of queue coz its likely to get overlooked otherwise.
I (we) all wish you well.

don Barrett
Irregular
don Barrett
March 3, 2014 7:44 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Thank you Alan; will do. Very kind of you.

Don

sivapann
Member
sivapann
January 23, 2014 8:32 pm

Is anyone following GeoVax’s HIV vaccine? I’m not a doctor or scientist and hence not able to validate its science. I see that Steve mentioned it above and ‘GOVX’ announced publication of Phase 2a results. The PR mentions excellent safety profile but nothing about efficacy.
http://seekingalpha.com/pr/8745921-geovax-announces-publication-of-phase-2a-clinical-trial-in-the-journal-of-infectious-diseases
Here is the abstract – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24403557

Any thought on this will be much appreciated

Add a Topic
5153
👍 4
George
Member
George
January 23, 2014 11:22 pm
Reply to  sivapann

The study was short term in healthy adults… so no efficacy can be had. It is purely an immunogenicity trial and a proof of principle one at that. I like the dual DNA – viral vector combo for establishing a balanced (CD8 and Ab) response… it also helps durability (how long it will last). That said, intramuscular injection of DNA doesnt work very well…. needs an adjuvant or a better DNA delivery system (ie electroporation)

One does not expect any safety issues in this type of trial (out side of local injection site reactions).

The CD8s are what you are looking for here… and they are fairly low (22% and 15% had detectable responses. The fact they had polyfunctional responses was very good. However, the cutoff for ‘responder’ vs non-responder is statistically weak.

This shows a possible incremental gain and I expect them to be able to improve it via DNA delivery, additional doses, etc… but it will not be an effective vaccine. Rather a step toward learning how to make one.

Add a Topic
899
karmaswimswami
January 23, 2014 9:06 pm

Siva: someone, maybe it was you, asked about it earlier and I meant to answer. All of these HIV vaccine development stories are very dicey. For every industry-sponsored effort, there are also several academic efforts. All have failed for 20 years, again and again.

In HIV vaccination, there are two prongs, therapeutic and preventive. For therapeutic, the goal is to give it to infected people in order to lessen their requirements for ART drugs, which are quite dear. For preventive vaccines, those are tricky to test because obviously you cannot willingly expose people to HIV. Those trials have been done in people at high risk for HIV: Bangkok sex workers. HIV-negative gay males who are promiscuous. Serodiscordant couples in the third world where barrier methods are refused or are not available. These are labor-intensive studies. You give real vaccine and sham vaccine in double blinded fashion, and then measure seroconversion rates.

Not to sound cynical, but I have often wondered whether some big companies have maybe been less interested than I would have hoped in developing a vaccine, because such a vaccine threatens extremely lucrative ART drug sales. Earlier this week, a nice major study, NOT funded by industry, showed conclusively that in fact everybody with HIV needs to be put far earlier on ART, at a CD4 count of 350 rather than 250. Years sooner in other words….which will strain budgets everywhere but also accrue right to the bottom line of Gilead, Merck, Abbvie, and so forth.

From what I have seen, GeoVax’s vaccine is just not truly distinct from or shrewder than so many others. The company I think may have the most interesting vaccine in development for HIV is the Finnish business FIT Biotech. They are not publicly traded as of yet. I will keep an eye on both. Remember the dictum I mentioned earlier though: how well a vaccine works is equal to how often the immune system conquers a virus unabetted. That makes sense, I feel. Vaccines work by placing demands on the immune system. If the immune system is never up to the task, then vaccines cannot do anything. A chickenpox shot is 100 per cent effective because chickenpox always goes away (well, not exactly….goes into neurologic sanctuary). 15 per cent of people who get acute HBV get chronic HBV and HBV vaccine prevents HBV in 85 per cent of people. Except for elite controllers, HIV never ever goes away.

Add a Topic
5153
Add a Topic
5153
Add a Topic
6113
siva
Member
siva
January 23, 2014 9:47 pm

Thanks DR. KSS for thoughtful comments.

Add a Topic
3932
sivapann
Member
sivapann
January 23, 2014 10:23 pm

TO Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe:

Thanks Travis for allowing us to have a conversation here and I really appreciate it.
One request I have is if its possible to display the comments in the reverse order ie display newer comments at the top in the descending order.

Add a Topic
5971
👍 4
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 24, 2014 4:43 am
Reply to  sivapann

I used to think the same, but anyone new, loses context as they are forced to read the thread backwards. Siva, its easy enough to hit the ‘end’ button on your keyboard to get to the latest entries. But it would be good if the link on the notification email linked to that particular question/reply rather than top of thread, as sometimes finding it in a thread this size is needle in a haystack IMO.

tanglewood
January 24, 2014 3:04 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Alan; re finding replies, if you have a keyword that’s not referenced in the blog too often, go to Chrome menu and hit ‘Find’ and the down arrow will take you to each reference.

👍 644
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 24, 2014 3:27 pm
Reply to  tanglewood

Thanks and probably true (although it took time to find ur reply!) Theres always a work around, but how much simpler if the link took you there directly. Lazy software.

donsc
donsc
January 24, 2014 12:01 am

Thanks

👍 2
sfimar
sfimar
January 24, 2014 12:23 am

I was thinking about PVCT but then I read Mr. karmaswimswami´s post about it and decided not to buy and cancelled my “low ball” order….THANK YOU!!! It is 64% down in one day…wow…
I am kind of late to the Biotech party myself…I have been lucky with GALE, NVAX, CVM…cannt complain with my +17% since I bought Benitec as per Mr. karmaswimswami recomendation…

Let me say it once again…thank you for sharing your knowledge and taking your time to answer all the questions and comments here, it is amazing to see somebody offering something so valuable for free and expecting nothing from it…thank you again…

Thanks again Mr. karmaswimswami!!

👍 150
ockrazor
ockrazor
January 24, 2014 8:25 am

Good Morning. I got the ability to trade international stocks ” turn on” for my fidelity account and almost pulled the trigger last night in Aus. I figured I would just buy here in the states this AM. Travis I know you said you liked to buy in the native country but I am thinking the US shouldn’t be that much of a differnce or arb would be huge so I will buy here unless you or Derek think there is a huge difference. Dr.KSS I went thru this all the post yesterday again. My head still hurts and I pick up one in 10 of your points but I appreciate it. I was just curious about this post. You said you mentioned in Sept and this post just started in Jan? Am I missing something(wouldn’t be the first time)

THIS IS NOT MINE and a post from earlier ( tanglewood)

■ karmaswimswami says:
January 21, 2014 at 4:16 pm Hi Steve: I do think you can wait a bit on RNN. Great company, and one I am long on, but it may sit at $1 for a while. Hard to know about BNIKF. Obviously there has been huge price action today. That may have owed to pent up post-holiday buying. BLT was down on the ASX last night, but BNIKF set a new high today in very very heavy volume. By technical analsysis it is in overbought territory, so I would let it settle before getting in. It of course is way up since I first mentioned here in September.

Add a Topic
3600
Add a Topic
3932
👍 132
Derek
Guest
January 24, 2014 1:31 pm
Reply to  ockrazor

Depends on your trade size. If it’s a small trade, the $9.95 per trade type, then you might be better off trading over here in the US market. If you are trading in size I believe it’s better to deal through the international desk where you have more control setting parameters for the trade but that may cost up to $100 per trade. I don’t know about Fidelity’s cost requirements.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 24, 2014 1:40 pm
Reply to  Derek

I still think you run the danger if the stock goes tits up, that you wont be able to set a meaningful stop loss for US till after Oz shuts….then theres hell to pay.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
372
ockrazor
ockrazor
January 24, 2014 3:32 pm
Reply to  Derek

Thanks. The currency conversion is a pain so prob just buy here

👍 132
greenfire67
Irregular
January 26, 2014 10:27 am
Reply to  ockrazor

Dr.KSS makes a great point,
BNIKF is overbought. Just need to stress how important it is to be patient. Once a market maker sees the potential for a momo stock, it sets presitence for the MM to “gouge” the investing public. If we all lowball our orders, and give it a little time, say 2 to 3 weeks, MM will be more inclined to let shares go for a reasonable price. But when presidence is already set, MM will always try to get all he can from US. So lets all set orders in the 40 – 50 cent range. There really is strength in numbers.

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
5971
👍 83
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 24, 2014 9:23 am

Anyone suffering from Migraine? Saw this yesterday and thought of you. No pills just a magnet!!..not sure if its investable or can be used for tinnitus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8547042.stm

Add a Topic
3867
Add a Topic
5344
karmaswimswami
January 24, 2014 1:48 pm

To Alan Harris: You could be right about BNIKF versus BLT shares, but my feeling is that BNIKF price action now dictates BLT price action, not vice versa. The company want it that way. Lots of Australian analysts view the market there are roundly beaten down. This is why Benitec decided to do the TT-034 HCV study in the US and not Down Under, to move the share price here.

Add a Topic
5916
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 24, 2014 1:52 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

So, any ‘bad news’ will break in US b4 Oz? Fair enough. If thats the case, its certainly safer buying BNIKF.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 24, 2014 1:55 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Strange that BLT rose n % before BINKF responded next day.

Andre Blanchet
Andre Blanchet
January 24, 2014 1:52 pm

Has anyone else noticed that the markets had a correction today?

Andre Blanchet
Andre Blanchet
January 24, 2014 1:55 pm

15,997.?????? Wow!!! I’m not educated in this industry but I know that’s not good. I guess it not horrible for the markets to fluctuate but -200! It was up to like 16,500

karmaswimswami
January 24, 2014 1:58 pm

To Leo S: I figured you meant 24 ng/mL. That really is quite low. If you review the vitamin D toxicity data, and believe me I have, there just basically isn’t a toxicity state from it. We were all taught in medical school that A,D, E, and K are fat soluble vitamins and that therefore people should be careful with those because they get stored and one could overdose. And that is true for vitamin A and for vitamin E. But despite fat solubility, the body will retain at most about 1 mg vitamin K at a time, no matter how much you take. For vitamin D, there are well-described situations in which wayward children have gotten into bottles of vitamin D and taken extraordinary doses affording extraordinary blood levels…..and with absolutely no adverse effects. I have scoured the literature in the past on this, looking for case of bona fide D toxicity, and there just isn’t one. So I guess what I am saying is ratchet up your dose til you get that level above 30 ng/mL. Escalate the dose slowly, and I probably wouldn’t go over 10,000 IU/day. Once doses get to that level, some patients have palpitations, not life threatening but scary. I would take it all in the morning, as there is evidence vitamin D taken later than morning may confound melatonin release in response to darkness and thus impair sleep onset. Hope this helps, and be well my friend.

Add a Topic
5399
Leo S
Guest
Leo S
January 24, 2014 2:36 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Dr. Karma, And thank you again.

Andre Blanchet
Andre Blanchet
January 24, 2014 3:16 pm

If heard that vitamin D deficiencies are the leading cause of cancer and Alzheimer’s and lots of other ailments! Dr Karma , have you ever heard of Ecklonia Kava? It’s supposed to be the most powerful antioxidant on earth! Why don’t the scientist and companies go after the oxidation of the minerals in the cells, which is the main cause of all disease in mammals! Oxidation of minerals is called “rust” by most people, so, why do the pharmaceuticals and investors and scientists go after cell division when it comes to cancer Alzheimer’s and other degenerative disorders. It’s understandable when it comes to virus and bacteria but not with age related issues?!!

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
4251
Add a Topic
4251
Brian Close
Brian Close
January 24, 2014 4:46 pm

To Leo S. and Dr K. Right on the mark again Dr K, this time regarding fat soluble vitamins! There may some merit Leo, in using D3 only, while you experiment with dosage levels until you get results. Vitamin D3 is water soluble, so there is absolutely no fear of toxicity. I have been taking 10,000 IU/day of D3 all this year, for immune support. The first time you mentioned vitamin D, you wrote D3, and thereafter you wrote just vitamin D. Looks innocent, but that’s the whole difference between fat soluble and water soluble! I have taken over 10,000 IU/day for limited periods like 60 to 90 days, with good health benefits, and without side effects. But i agree with Dr K, build up gradually, and try not to go over the 10,000 IU/ day.

Add a Topic
5399
Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
Leo S
Guest
Leo S
January 24, 2014 5:41 pm
Reply to  Brian Close

Brian, Yes, I studied D2/D3 before I started taking D3. Thank you.

jamespaul108
jamespaul108
January 25, 2014 4:33 pm
Reply to  Brian Close

I don’t know if it’s true, but there are multiple articles on the internet stating that increased consumption of Vitamin D increases the need for magnesium and Vitamin A. Somewhere I read that prolonged consumption of large amount of Vitamin D resulted in symptoms of Vitamin A deficiency, even though Vitamin A was consumed or produced in normal amounts. Here are a couple examples of articles.
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2009/04/tufts-university-confirms-that-vitamin.html
http://jdmoyer.com/2011/01/12/how-and-why-to-balance-fat-soluble-vitamins/

👍 37
karmaswimswami
January 25, 2014 1:05 pm

Siva: You raised some good issues about Provectus. That company might be worth reviewing here a little. For those who do not know about Provectus, it is a Knoxville, TN, company doing clinical trials with a dye, Rose Bengal, used heretofore for cytology work in labs and sometimes by ophthalmologists. Somehow, not sure how, they have managed to patent this pennies-a-serving age-old compound, and are now making sweeping claims about it having efficacy for treating melanoma and psoriasis. The former is what has gotten the most attention. Melanoma is a skin cancer of extraordinary metastatic potential. The stock has been very volatile in recent days. I see many problems with this company.

Siva, you raised the point about it having an ostensibly distinguished science advisor. There’s an adage: an honest person is someone whose price you cannot afford. Frankly, the ranks of academia are bursting with people only to happen to lend their name to a science advisory panel, a glorious sinecureal post paying 150K-200K for 4 meetings a year plus the occasional conference call. No heavy lifting. And at present, Provectus has only ONE scientific advisor. The advisor you mentioned is a dermatologist. Except for very early small melanoma lesions, this is not a dermatologist’s illness. It falls to oncologists. Red flag, I feel.

Provectus loves to make sweeping claims that its therapy, which involves injecting Rose Bengal into melanoma lesions, causes “magic” to happen. In some papers they claim this induces autophagy. In others, they claim that the dye is avidly drunk up by the cells, where it enters lysosomes and causes cells to burst (necrose, not apoptose). So, which is Provectus? Autophagy or lysis? Having trouble keeping your stories straight? In fact what they are describing is in no way unique to melanoma cells. This agent is a vesicant, a blisterer, that causes sloughing and rot wherever you inject it. Nothing special or specific is happening with melanoma cells.

Provectus claims that its agent causes a bystander effect….that if you inject melanoma lesions with it, other uninjected lesions light up because they claim it is inducing a never-before-seen immune response against them. Ho-hum. This effect has been known about for 100 years. We have forever known that if you have a mole, and you suddenly notice a dipigmenting halo around it, get thee to a doctor quickly. It means you probably have melanoma. It means that some growing pigmented lesion has set off an antimelanocyte immune response. But having this effect happen does not prognosticate you to a good outcome from melanoma.

I notice with deep concern that many of Provectus’s early trial patients seem “lost” to follow up. Surely something fundamental is now known about their outcome, their survival status, their metastases. Why is this not being reported? What are they hiding?

When I look at the study protocols for its trials, I am disquieted. Somehow, they have found investigators willing to “sell” being on a trial of this totally unproven agent as a reasonable alternative to chemotherapy and immune-based therapies. This is not ethical, in my view. It is unethical to withhold standard of care treatment for these patients.
I feel they have found dodgy places to do their trials using institutional review boards of doubtful integrity. Believe me, they are out there.

One thing with Provectus I have known about for a long time, and held off mentioning, is the circumstances surrounding one of its American investigators. I will politely defer naming him here. This person has had quite legendary run-ins with his colleagues, over questions about his integrity and sanity. In fact, colleagues have repeatedly sued him for creating a hostile work environment and to get him removed. Virtually no one will work with him on anything. In fact, I myself had a savage run-in with this person years ago. He called me at home one night when I wasn’t on call, accused me of mismanaging a patient whose care I wasn’t involved in, used profanity that would make a Detroit street gang blush, and threatened to execute a crude bodily function in my mouth. Provectus did NOT do any due diligence about this physician, and in fact he is not a melanoma scholar at all. This person is a monster, and Provectus loves him.

Provectus’s claims about Rose Bengal smack of delusion. They are studying it for melanoma because they claim it induces an immune response. And yet they claim it helps psoriasis, an autoimmune disease. So, let me get this straight, Rose Bengal makes an autoimmune disease all better by increasing the immune response…….good luck with that Provectus!

DO NOT drink the Rose Bengal Kool-Aid. This is junk science of a high order. The fact is, hucksters still can prosper, at least for a season, in biotech, because it is a field where most investors are just not equipped to critically assess the claims being made. An investment in Provectus is an investment in traveling show potions and elixirs. I think I have said it before: in science, the easiest person to fool is always yourself (Richard Feynman said that).

Add a Topic
4796
Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
5971
Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 25, 2014 2:44 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Your anti posts often make me LOL. Mostly I havent got the foggiest idea about the science …..but you give every indication that YOU do and thats good enough for me. THAT’S why we trust you Swammi. You know your onions.

sean connery
Member
sean connery
January 26, 2014 12:05 pm
Reply to  Alan Harris

Well Said.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 25, 2014 3:09 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

As said above….I know B all about the science. I suspect that 99.997% of others here know little more than me. It would take us a lifetime to get to where you are, so ANY DD we do is practically useless. At best its re-inventing the wheel…. square. We’ve all suggested that you write a blog/offer a tip sheet……theres a queue at your door. As with most share dealing, it comes to this…..do you trust this person? Lets cut to the chase. Myron feeds us mining etc tips (an almost unmanageably HUGE amount). I know zero about mining…..but I trust the guy isnt a fraud and so far he’s helped me pay for 10yrs of GS subscriptions.
Lets not bother too much with the ‘dont buy this’. Just give us a list of your good ponies. Of course its a ‘responsibiity’ that may not sit well with you. Sure some WILL fall at te first fence….no crystal balls on this or any other site. But you dont even need to make recco’s …..just tell us where YOUR money is going and why. Then its our money and OUR decision. And if its a bummer…well at least we’ll know that youre in the bath too. No complaints from me…..Im a big boy.

Add a Topic
372
sivapann
Member
sivapann
January 25, 2014 11:41 pm
Reply to  karmaswimswami

Thank you Dr. KSS. I read a chemist’s blog somewhere that mentions when you remove impurities in a dye(I know I’m not using the medical parlance here) it has medicinal value. I cant find that link now.

Here is a Life science’s report where Culpepper describes how Rose Bengal and autolysis is used as a cancer therapeutic http://www.thelifesciencesreport.com/pub/na/provectus-pharmaceuticals-inc-and-pv-10-rose-bengal-as-a-novel-cancer-therapeutic

I also found an anonymous blogger who seems like invested his life on PVCT:
http://provectuspharmaceuticalsinc.blogspot.com/
http://provectuspharmaceuticalsinc.blogspot.com/p/about-blogger.html
http://provectuspharmaceuticalsinc.blogspot.com/2014/01/provectus-biopharmaceuticals-worth-of.html

I have not invested in PVCT, but made a quick 50% playing the bounce last week. I like AF this instance.

Add a Topic
3932
Add a Topic
3397
👍 4
biocqr
biocqr
January 25, 2014 1:31 pm

Red flag #1: Provectus only has 4 employees
Red flag #2: they each haul in >$1M in salary
Red flag #3: no institutional ownership to speak of…only .026%… no biotech funds own PVCT

PVCT is a sham.

👍 2
Warner
January 25, 2014 2:29 pm
Reply to  biocqr

I can not validate this info except to say in 2012 they had SG&A expenses of $13,613,000 compared to $48,000 for R&D with no revenues (per TDA). Sure smells like a crushed stink bug to me.

Alan Harris
Guest
Alan Harris
January 25, 2014 2:45 pm
Reply to  biocqr

Good post !! Thanx

microcapwiz
Member
microcapwiz
January 25, 2014 1:33 pm

trlpf and tltff have the biggest upside in the biotech space.

Add a Topic
1278
1 9 10 11 12 13 67

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