Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Provectus Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NTTG who wrote (12170)	7/3/2013 11:48:56 AM
From: mplaut	2 Recommendations Recommended By Howard Williams Jack Russell Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13111

There is no question that PVCT is trying to beat a new path to its goals. Most of your complaints are in comparison to others. Since they are clearly trying a different path, these comparisons are somewhat unfair, even if accurate. There is no other company in the world that has a product that has successfully passed a PII trial and is a candidate for some sort of PIII procedure, that has only 4 employees. And it is not like the runner-up has 10 employees either. We are talking about differences in several orders of magnitude. The way you make your point about hiring a regulatory expert seems to be designed to put in a gratuitous dig at the salaries (which are worthy of criticism even though in 2012 they were "only" mid six figures). They do not seem to be stressed at raising the relatively small amount of money that they need to cover their "burn rate" (which is mostly salaries), and there is no apparent reason that they would have to take a 55k salary cut to spend another 220k. Like I said in my previous post, the main issue is if things are not getting done or taking longer than they need to take because PVCT is slow to do what it has to do. My impression is that this is not the case. Peter is busy (as he should be) but does not seem overly stressed by his responsibilities. They are getting help with their science from Moffitt. It is, or should be, clear that the only real answer to everything is if they succeed, meaning that they sell out for a high price, like they think it is worth. They are not going to sell out on the cheap. They are not going to try to cash in for themselves by raising money in equity sales. It seems that they may/will be able to get some sort of PIII procedure approved without spending any additional money. Then the question is if that approval can be leveraged into some sort of cash to fund operations going forward.

To: NTTG who wrote (12170)	7/3/2013 12:14:26 PM
From: jm2i123	3 Recommendations Recommended By Howard Williams Jack Russell mplaut Respond to of 13111

"The decision to go 'virtual' obligates the plan to a 'cash and carry' based pool of resources, no vested interest...poor quality performance." >how many clinical trials have in total been launched and completed? >were those trials executed at a slower pace? higher cost? with less patients? than in market >how many clinical trials are undergoing? >how many sites have been selected for those clinical trials? US: how many Australia: how many >were those sites "minor"? >Is Moffit Tampa Cancer center, a minor center for research on melanoma? Were the clinicians and teams selected under-performing vs what you see in the clinical trial market? Were the managers/Lead clinicians/ lead investigators unknown/under rated/over rated? "This is not a lean company when you consider compensation for productivity, it is actually quite bloated." Compensation for productivity is not a benchmark applicable to Lean. If you want to talk about money, talk about the overall costs vs productivity and we can talk - this though is still not about Lean. If each FTE at PVCT had given up 55K of their 7 figure compensation, I dare say an outstanding 'regulatory' expert could have been found. Should have been a small potatoes decision for MGT how do you know they do not have an expert for regulatory? how do you know Eric Watcher has not being helped on that front, connections wise, i.e from the board or previous connections. Their plan has nothing to do with getting a drug through the development pipe, Why then burning funds on other indications? liver, skin etc.. It is all about licensing and hoping the partner knows how to get the job done... 80% of Biotech companies, post phase 2, engage in searching for a Licensing partner to support the cost of the phase3 trial. So what you're saying here doesn't make any sense.