Several responses - I did not suggest a buyout was a possibility. I gave reasons it is not likely. I've done this before in regards to two networking companies and a data storage company, which all have good tech in good niches, but there is not business case for an acquisition. The reason I have had to make these posts is that acquisition speculation is all over SI in multiple sectors.
You commented on their technology in pretty sweeping generalities. Any comment on the following ?
''Naked DNA'' is potentially revolutionary because it stimulates both arms of the immune system, antibodies and T-cells, which are immune cells made by the thymus gland."
biz.yahoo.com
And the material risk of actually contracting the virus as a result of inoculation with "live" vaccines (such as live MMR being clearly correlated with the onset of autism in the US & UK, particularly last onset - see Lancet from Feb 88)
BTW, when you refer to "20 % of the cases" could you specify what trial you were referring to? It appears you may be referring to both their therapeutic vaccines as well as their preventative, as you then lump IL-2 encoding, which is a feature of some of their therapeutic vaccines, while the MRK reference was in relation to preventative. Also, IL-2is given systemically in some cancer patients, with significant side effects. The hope with VICL is to keep it localized. But if some escapes, how is this a greater risk? Please advise, you may have a legit concern, but you sure have not expressed it well nor presented any supporting arguments, cites etc.
You painted their tech with a broad brush. Seems like their prostate trials had a much better than 20% response rate.
"Patients enrolled in the trial received two doses of Leuvectin followed after several weeks by either radical prostatectomy (complete surgical removal of the prostate gland) or prostate biopsy (for patients with rising PSA after radiation therapy). Treatment with Leuvectin was intended to stimulate a localized immune response against the primary tumor and a systemic immune response against any tumor cells that may have escaped from the capsule.
In eight of the 12 patients scheduled for surgery, pre-surgical serum PSA levels decreased significantly after treatment with Leuvectin. Three patients were diagnosed with metastatic disease at the time of the surgery and therefore excluded from the trial. All nine patients who remained in the trial after surgery maintained negligible PSA levels after 11 to 18 months and continuing.
In seven of the nine patients with progressive disease following radiation therapy, serum PSA levels decreased significantly after treatment with Leuvectin. In four of five patients receiving a second treatment course of Leuvectin, the rate of increase in PSA levels was reduced considerably."
biz.yahoo.com
Sounds like pretty good efficacy to me.
You speak of you concern orer the use of "may". Due to our "legal system lottery" mindset, this is as likely to be cautionary tones from a company worried about shareholder lawsuits solicited by the multiple shart firms that troll for cases to form class actions as it may be a reflection on their technology. (Look at the abuse that happened with DAOU. If I was their counsel, I'd launch a malicious prosecution countersuit after they win.)
As a long-term senior consulting level clinical analyst, I'm held accountable for thoroughly researching any recommendations & building a strong fact case. For example, my presentation to Columbia/HCA management concerning the creation of a clinical computing consulting service had 25 pages of supporting articles covering standards of care, changes in practice, return on investment, litigation trends, plus 10 letters of support from directors of clinical ancillaries.
You did not include any clear citations or a link.
If you in fact have the credentials you claim, you are far more qualified than I to review their technology. But, I think there's a pretty good chance the heavies called on by MRK, Centocor, Merial, Boston Scientific, Pasteur Merieux Connaught, the US Navy, Steven Rosenberg at NCI, and Pfizer are a little more qualified. Wonder what the DD efforts of the major pharma's was before they put their money on the line?
I'm willing to give you a chance. I've learned to not dismiss bears who make a good case. Wish I'd listened to some a few years back.
It's possible you: have legit motives AND have the background you claim AND have done a lot of research on this. But you sure have NOT done a good job at presenting your findings, and the way you seem to mix the technology issues, I sure have my doubts. Again, you make a broad case without a lot of specifics <<The technology is weak, the results are poor, the prospects are grim... Take my advice, stay out of VICL>>.
From your comments, the only item I can correlate your concerns to is Louvectin, a therapeutic vaccine. You make no reference to Allovectin-7, which has a totally different method of action, and is in phase III. It really would help if you could include specifics.
So go ahead - if you have a solid case, put some meat behind it. I'm really willing to listen. I'm both admired and resented on the TRIBY thread since I consider & post bullish, bearish & concerns - I look for and present multifaceted analysis regarding business case, FA, TA, economic trends, market psych.. I respect intellectual integrity, and shread the lack of it when repeatedly ignored by posters. IMSCO Scott
.
|
