This is just the public discourse the company and stock need to and should have, as folks of varying influence following and opining about the biotechnology sector start, I hope, weighing in more frequently and regularly on PV-10, Provectus and the stock.
Too good to be true. Snake oil.
@JPZaragoza1: Total BS
Understandable. Moffitt's headline is, after all, pretty heady: "Single injection," "may revolutionize." As a DVM, I would be interested in getting his perspective on the use of rose bengal in animals, such as the case studies posted by Australia's East West Vets.
No progress.
@chasingthealpha $PVCT been around forever, still no real progress
Understandable. Consider the metastatic melanoma Phase 2 final clinical study report only recently was completed, with limited data availability and no Phase 3 trial has started yet. 6 years. I suppose, could be considered "forever:"
- The trial started in September 2007: Begins Phase 2 Clinical Trial for Metastatic Melanoma,
- Preliminary data was released at Melanoma 2010 in November: Full Phase 2 Study Data on PV-10 for Metastatic Melanoma,
- Final trial data was released at ESMO in October 2012: Final Phase 2 Melanoma Data,
- A complete data set (as well as local observations as yet unreported) should be released at ECCO in September 2013: PV-10 Data on Locoregional Disease Control in Metastatic Melanoma.
No proof of systemic benefit.
@JPZaragoza1 smells of $VICL all over. Crap.
Understandable. Predecessor local (intralesional) agents T-Vec (talimogene laherparepvec) and Allovectin-7 have produced modest to no systemic benefit, and certainly not robust and/or immune-mediated ones, and not to mention modest to failed Phase 3 clinical results.
@JPZaragoza1 smells of $VICL all over. Crap.
Understandable. Predecessor local (intralesional) agents T-Vec (talimogene laherparepvec) and Allovectin-7 have produced modest to no systemic benefit, and certainly not robust and/or immune-mediated ones, and not to mention modest to failed Phase 3 clinical results.
High profile, peer-reviewed publications, please.
@MaverickNY when there’s a NEJM or JCO article, I pay attention #brutalhonesty
Understandable. There has been no validation of Provectus and third party research and clinical trial results many folks require by virtue of publication in high profile journals like the New England Journal of Medicine or Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Understandable. There has been no validation of Provectus and third party research and clinical trial results many folks require by virtue of publication in high profile journals like the New England Journal of Medicine or Journal of Clinical Oncology.
KOL skepticism.
@MaverickNY if I’m really honest, the ones not in the trial don’t. really sorry (in response to @JSwatercooler Ouch. KOLs love PV-10. Read the PLOS ONE article.)
Interesting. I would like to understand the veracity of Dr. Church's perspective about KOLs' views of PV-10 not "related" to the drug (i.e., principal investigators like Agarwala, Ross or Thompson, or researchers like Sondak and Weber). According to Provectus, management has been told by top clinicians [unnamed to me] in very clear terms they will use PV-10 to treat all manner of cancer stricken patients – melanoma, liver cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer and pancreatic cancer – because the drug is very user friendly (i.e., it has a favorable adverse event profile and is easy to administer). These clinicians want to use it earlier and if other treatments fail. So, who's right...?
Interesting. I would like to understand the veracity of Dr. Church's perspective about KOLs' views of PV-10 not "related" to the drug (i.e., principal investigators like Agarwala, Ross or Thompson, or researchers like Sondak and Weber). According to Provectus, management has been told by top clinicians [unnamed to me] in very clear terms they will use PV-10 to treat all manner of cancer stricken patients – melanoma, liver cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer and pancreatic cancer – because the drug is very user friendly (i.e., it has a favorable adverse event profile and is easy to administer). These clinicians want to use it earlier and if other treatments fail. So, who's right...?
Too good to be true. Snake oil. No progress. No proof of systemic benefit. No high profile peer-reviewed publications. Key opinion leader skepticism. I think management has heard all of this before.
It's always good to know the other side. This early Twitter discussion is more banter than actually the other side of the/a trade...for now.
Regulatory clarity and commercial validation cure a lot, and it would seem both are on the way.
It's always good to know the other side. This early Twitter discussion is more banter than actually the other side of the/a trade...for now.
Regulatory clarity and commercial validation cure a lot, and it would seem both are on the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment