Is Inovio Poised to Climb, or Will It Tumble?

Inovio Pharmaceuticals  (NASDAQ: INO  )  discovers and develops synthetic vaccines and immune therapies focusing on infectious diseases and cancers. Here's what you need to know about this stock.

VGX-3100 a big binary event for Inovio
Large pharma interest within the space sets the backdrop for Inovio's pivotal mid-stage data readout for VGX-3100, expected between late June to late July. Delivered through Inovio's electroporation technology, VGX-3100 is indicated as a potential treatment for adult women with biopsy-proven HPV types 16 or 18 associated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

We also have to consider Inovio's partnership with Roche  (NASDAQOTH: RHHBY  ) , for the development of INO-1800 and INO-5150 for hepatitis B and prostate cancer, respectively. This represents a $412.5 million opportunity in milestone payments for Inovio, and potentially much more should Roche decide to explore additional indications. It is not inconceivable that Roche could decide to expand its partnership with Inovio by licensing VGX-3100 upon a positive top-line readout from the ongoing phase 2 trial.

Provided this understanding of the overall climate surrounding Inovio, the upcoming data readout is pivotal to the future of the company, as its other clinical candidates may not have shown enough of an immune response to warrant late-stage study.

Simply put, I suspect that this binary event will be crucial -- this is one of Inovio's most advanced pipeline candidates, and it's crucial, not just for the drug itself, but also to help validate the pipeline.

Are DNA vaccines still viable?
It seems that as clinical trials progress into phase 2/3, DNA vaccines tend to produce suboptimal immune responses in humans, potentially lending credence to the bear case with respect to Inovio that VGX-3100 could be destined for a similar fate. Of course, since Inovio has yet to develop a commercial product since its inception, the bear case may be all the more relevant.

Despite the fact that Inovio is planning on using its own immune activator called IL-12 as part of the vaccine regimen in further clinical testing of VGX-3100, there remains the looming concern that the enhancement may not significantly improve the prospects of success.

Thus, while many are optimistic about VGX-3100, clinical failure would likely be catastrophic to shareholders as it is the lead clinical candidate at this time.

Strong financial position
For Q1 2014, Inovio lost $11 million, or $0.05 a share, missing analyst expectations. However, earnings were bolstered by Inovio's research agreement with Roche, which accounted for three developmental fees totaling $1.4 million. As a result, total revenue was $2.4 million for the quarter, beating the consensus of $1.41 million. Inovio has plenty of cash -- about $116.8, with $63.3 million garnered from an underwritten offering during the quarter -- so cash burn isn't an immediate issue, although Inovio will eventually need additional cash unless a partnership is signed.

My Foolish takeaway
Post reverse-split, short interest stands at roughly 13.6% of the float. This indicates that there are many who are betting on a decline, following the top-line readout anticipated to be between late June-late July.

Given the negative sentiment surrounding the top-line readout of VGX-3100, as well as the poor track record of DNA vaccines, I think investors should sit on the sidelines until after the binary event occurs.

Leaked: This coming blockbuster will make every biotech jealous
The best biotech investors consistently reap gigantic profits by recognizing true potential earlier and more accurately than anyone else. Let me cut right to the chase. There is a product in development that will revolutionize not how we treat a common chronic illness, but potentially the entire health industry. Analysts are already licking their chops at the sales potential. In order to outsmart Wall Street and realize multi-bagger returns you will need The Motley Fool’s new free report on the dream-team responsible for this game-changing blockbuster. CLICK HERE NOW.

 


Read/Post Comments (29) | Recommend This Article (7)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 2:42 PM, mrupani wrote:

    So you post an article with baseless information on why people should sit out on the sidelines. Why would you recommend that based on what? Your profile says you went to UC Davis, funny, I just graduated from there in December. Was apart of numerous clubs as well as an intern for Morgan Stanley(which im sure you were too...right), but never seen you around. You must not have any knowledge within the field since you write baseless information which you essentially copied and pasted from other articles. Please, do us a favor, stay in school.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 3:03 PM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    What is your name, mrupani? Lets talk on the phone.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Chapman03030303 wrote:

    Trevor, Trevor, Trevor??!!...you did such a nice job with the Dr. Kim interview a few weeks ago. What is this? Why are you using traditional DNA vaccine results as a backdrop for Inovio's success/failure? We are generating exponential T-cells compared to historical vaccines. Where is that in your article? And, the use of EP! Didn't see that in your article either. To be a respected journalist, you must present ALL the facts!

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 3:13 PM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    Chapman,

    I think Inovio is destined for success. However, it simply is too risky at this time to commit to a long position, in my opinion. If the technology is viable, it doesn't hurt to wait until after the top-line readout takes place.

    The article was chopped down to what it is now, whether I liked it or not. Regardless, use your best judgement. Each investor must assess their own risk tolerance. After all, a lot of people are going to be out of luck come time for the readout, whether short or long.

    Good luck with your investment.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 3:16 PM, BigCDog wrote:

    Is this the same Trevor? Seems he's done an about face. I don't get it. Why didn't you include more of the info you included in your seeking alpha article which was much more broad spectrum in nature? For the record, NO ONE HAS GONE THE ROUTE INOVIO IS TAKING WITH THEIR DNA VACCINES BY USING ELECTROPORATION! You can't even compare them with other companies because of how they are doing it.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Johnyy23232 wrote:

    So you write an article just so you can go in and short everyone, nice. To bad your article has no merit.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 4:27 PM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    John,

    If my article has no merit, then you have nothing to worry about.

    Good luck with your long position in INO. Hopefully it pays off.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 5:03 PM, remrem44 wrote:

    You beat AF to the punch this time on the small run up in last few days nice. I'm sure smoke is coming from his ears the student is now becoming the teacher.

    I believe anyone that invests in a bio speculative company WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING FULLY and SOUNDLY the hard cold facts behind the science and the said company's fundamental foundation, their investing strategy is doomed to fail. The retail investor must understand that many people that report on the bio sector have absolutely NO background to justify their ability to critique the science let alone understand whether the science may have a chance of being valid or a possible pipe-dream. If you plan on investing in the bio sector you better have a strong understanding of the science and the company you are investing in, again if not you're investment is doomed to fail. Because one thing you can rest assured in this sector it is extremely volatile. Arguments in favor and against the said company and everywhere in between are going to occur to drive the stock price crazy. With that type of crazy play brings in unscrupulous people that will play on the fears of the retail investor that has a very weak understanding and/or belief in the company they are holding and that is exactly the type of prey these manipulators are looking for. If you believe the Street and phools of the world are here to help you understand the science and make you a fundamental sound investor in the bio sector, you might as well post your social security number along with credit card numbers on the internet. So again, if you don't have any clue as to the science and the company you are investing in GET THE HECK OUT and stay out. Because your weak hands WILL be shaken of your shares because of your lack of understanding as to why Inovio's science is different from any other DNA vaccine company that has come before it, after it or is competing presently. Just trying to help the ones that always get slaughtered, Good Luck!

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 9:41 PM, Slunty101 wrote:

    Trevor...Trevor...Trevor! What was this? You think you would've learned. First you threw softballs at Adam Feuerestein and now this. You saw what the reaction was to his article. Though his article was filled with lies, you both are guilty of failing to do your research and due diligence. This is a huge failure for yourself and the reader. You're young...just learn from it, grow and move on!

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 9:48 PM, Slunty101 wrote:

    Trevor, how did you become a contributor to a Seeking Alpha? You're a college kid with no real experience, yet your bio says your investment experience is medium to high with a portfolio ranging from 4 to 12 stocks. It also says you specialize in Healthcare. It sounds like my you are doing my kids 6th grade economics homework at best. I'm sorry, but you have no experience and to rank yourself as medium to high because you may have got an A in an upper division course is wrong. I have years of real experience both personally and professionally and I would rank myself as medium...high is just an absurd declaration! You're not ready!

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 9:56 PM, Slunty101 wrote:

    OMG... You're not even a finance major! You are a current undergrad student who is studying political science!!! Who's dad do you know that works at Motley Fool? Readers should know this about an author claiming to be an expert in a field he is obviously not! Mötley Fools credibility just sank even more! Don't take it personal, but your claims and articles have real world consequences and you have not earned that privilege yet.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 10:07 PM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    Slunty,

    First of all, love the name. Secondly, I searched everywhere for all of your articles and found none. All I find is moronic comments by somebody who purports to be an authority. Clearly sir, you are an authority amongst a school of morons, and your opinion is of absolute no value.

    Years of experience and bad judgement does not make you a competent investor. Your comments reflect a lifetime of investment losses, poor judgment and an inability to analyze properly.

    Thanks for your insightful comments. I must say, it really struck a cord. I shall remember to do the exact opposite of everything you advise. In fact, I will advise others to be aware of your unsolicited opinions.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 10:39 PM, Chapman03030303 wrote:

    Trevor - in all honesty, what is the vetting process to become a contributor for MF?

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 11:00 PM, Slunty101 wrote:

    Trevor, I know I sounded angry, but I'm not angry at you. I'm very angry at Motley Fool. Listen... You probably have a bright future, but at this time and with your experience, you have no business being a contributor at this time. You also have to be open to unsolicited opinions if this is the path you choose. They are interlinked. 5-10 years from now, you'll understand what I'm saying. I thought I was a finance guru too out of college when I went to work for a finance company. I soon realized book knowledge and true knowledge are vastly different. As for me, I am very successful. I have made my mistakes, but all investors do no matter what level of expertise you have. Any investor who says he can predict the market is a liar. If he could, he'd be the richest person on earth with a larger following than god. It's a risky business and one seeks to minimize risk. Still, the riskiest payoff the greatest returns so they are tempting sometimes. I wasn't trying to knock you. I can tell you are working hard, but novice investors use publications, such as Motley Fool, to make life changing decisions because they think experienced professionals are behind those words. They have yet to learn. I'm not disappointed with your takeaway as this stock does have risk associated with it. I'm disappointed with your research and due diligence. To say your an expert in stocks is one thing...to choose the biotech sector is a whole other beast! To analyze it, one better have a true understanding of biology, immunology, and pathophysiology. You may have a future, but before Kobe Bryant could dunk, he had to learn to dribble first!

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 12:05 AM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    Slunty,

    Great story-- I'm glad you took all that time to write out such toothless commentary.

    Words upon words are shoved in my mouth by your insidious remarks, while none of them have any effect on my resolve as a writer or an investor. Per my previous comments, I shall repeat: your statements reflect those of a childish imbecile... I would try to have a civil conversation with you, but it's pretty clear what your agenda is here.

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 1:37 AM, Sciencebased1K wrote:

    PART 1 OF 2: I will admit that I felt a tinge of empathy for the author – yet the torrent of critique is IMO warranted for this particular article. To paraphrase one commenter, “learn from it, and move on”. I have attempted to provide some robust facts to buttress my comments, and specific examples to show why the articles’ conclusions are ludicrous. Why did I write this – because such a poorly-researched article with slovenly conclusions can really hurt the naïve investor. Consider this a public-service announcement on INO.

    POINT 1: Where shall I start – so many lazy errors and omissions in this article. I’m not sure which is worse: the inane title, in effect saying, “Will Inovio go up or down” (seriously?!!); or the article as a whole. Here are a few facts:

    THE ARTICLE SAID: “It seems that as clinical trials progress into phase 2/3, DNA vaccines tend to produce suboptimal immune responses in humans, potentially lending credence to the bear case with respect to Inovio that VGX-3100 could be destined for a similar fate. Of course, since Inovio has yet to develop a commercial product since its inception, the bear case may be all the more relevant.”

    REBUTTAL: Comparing “DNA vaccines” to the SynCon vaccines and electroporation delivery developed by Inovio is a little like comparing a Lada to a Ferrari Testarossa. Firstly, Inovio DNA vaccines are being developed with the expertise of Dr D.B. Weiner, “Father of DNA Vaccines”, as well as the former President of Merck vaccines (see Inovio website), and other world-class immunology luminaries. Secondly, the very vaccine that awaits P2 results – the VGX 3100 is the same award-winning vaccine that earned these accolades FROM INDUSTRY PEERS: “VGX-3100 was recognized as the most promising research at the 2011 Global Vaccine Congress, winning first prize in the Edward Jenner Award Competition. It was also recognized by the Vaccine Industry Excellence (ViE) Awards for "Best Therapeutic Vaccine" in 2013”.

    POINT 2: THE ARTICLE SAID: that this is Inovio’s first P2 – and that therefore it must “tend to produce suboptimal immune responses in humans”.

    REBUTTAL: This assertion is as inane as saying that America would never have an African-American president, because it had never had one before. Or it's as silly as predicting that just because you get 20 tails on the first 20 coin tosses, the 21st will also be a tail. In other words, your argument would hold that ANY NEW TECHNOLOGY will not succeed, because it’s never been done before. This article omits the massive differentiation INO has from its biotech counterparts; instead it asks the reader to sink to the lowest common denominator and generalize platitudes about the biotech industry as a whole – to a company that is anything but average. This is lousy investment advice – and a dangerously misguided investment strategy.

    POINT 3: “Despite the fact that Inovio is planning on using its own immune activator called IL-12 as part of the vaccine regimen in further clinical testing of VGX-3100, there remains the looming concern that the enhancement may not significantly improve the prospects of success.”

    REBUTTAL: The only looming concern is that you have not done your homework. “Inovio is developing a portfolio of patent-protected DNA-based cytokine immune activators that, in combination with Inovio’s DNA vaccines delivered by electroporation, can increase the potency and efficacy of therapeutic immune responses against cancers and chronic viral infections in humans.”

    All it takes is a google of “Inovio, and IL-12”, and a host of articles and accolades on Inovio’s synthetic IL-12 comes up. From the Inovio website: “Inovio’s DNA-based IL-12 immune activator enhanced antigen-specific T cell immune responses from its HIV DNA vaccine, PENNVAX®. In that study, 89% of the subjects who received IL-12 DNA together with the PENNVAX® DNA vaccine delivered with electroporation produced a vaccine specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cell response compared to 67% who received the DNA vaccine alone without the IL-12 DNA. NOTE: THAT’S RIGHT –INOVIO’S IL-12 ADJUVANT INCREASED PIVOTAL T-CELL RESPONSES FROM 67% TO 89% IN HIV - NO SMALL MATTER. And that’s just one of scores of articles on a plethora of diseases that INO has patented DNA for. Indeed, Inovio has more synthetic DNA patents than the rest of the industry combined, and they have a prodigious rate of output; just take a look at their scores of meaty press releases over 2014.

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 1:43 AM, Sciencebased1K wrote:

    PART 2 OF 2:

    POINT 4: The article implies that Inovio’s “other clinical candidates may not have shown enough of an immune response to warrant late-stage study”.

    REBUTTAL: Allow me to provide a few examples that blow this assertion out of the water:

    INOVIO’S BEST IN CLASS T-CELL RESULTS: “Unprecedented antigen-specific, dose-related T-cell immune responses reported in cancer and HIV”. Cross-strain protective antibodies, a critical step in the development of a universal influenza vaccine:

    INOVIO’S ELECTROPORATION: "Having already shown repeatedly that DNA vaccines delivered with Electroporation increases vaccine uptake by 1000X (that’s ONE THOUSAND TIMES), and mobilizes more antigen-specific T-cells than anyone else, puts Inovio in the hot seat to seal multiple collaborations in 2H 2014"

    INOVIO’S TB VACCINE – hot off the press June 23/2014: "We sought to investigate if broader cellular immune responses could be induced using a multivalent DNA (TB) vaccine representing the esx family protein members delivered via electroporation….Vaccination with all 5 (trivalent highly optimized DNA plasmids) elicited robust antigen-specific IFN-γ responses to all encoded esx antigens and induced multifunctional CD4 Th1 and CD8 T cell responses. Importantly, we show that when all constructs are combined into a cocktail, the RSQ-15 vaccine, elicited substantial broad Ag-specific T cell responses to all esx antigens as compared with vaccination with BCG" (See PubMed: Multivalent TB vaccines targeting the esx gene family generate potent and broad cell-mediated immune responses superior to BCG.) And Inovio’s TB vaccine is only one of many diseases they are successfully cracking.

    POINT 5: The article noted, , “Provided this understanding of the overall climate surrounding Inovio, the upcoming data readout is pivotal to the future of the company, as its other clinical candidates may not have shown enough of an immune response to warrant late-stage study. (I've already addressed the lunacy of this prior sentence) "If the technology is viable, IT DOESN’T HURT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE TOP-LINE READOUT TAKES PLACE.

    REBUTTAL: This is a little like the conniving big brother telling his gullible sibling: “Leave the last piece of the double-fudge-chocolate cake on the table – nobody’s gonna touch it tonight - you can have some tomorrow”. Face-palm.

    Here’s an example – provided by Yahoo INO investor nextbigthingsss, of why it might hurt to wait until the masses (and institutional investors) have aggressively responded to Inovio’s positive P2 results: “If P2 readout is positive, larger SHORT positions can mean quicker rise of INO's pps to $400. It may just take as little as one After Hour trading session to get there, like it did with ICPT (this chart is well worth your time - look up Intercept Pharmaceuticals’ Yahoo chart for January 9th, 2014). As nextbigthingsss continued, "(Remember, INO has bigger pipeline than ICPT, including INO-1400 hTERT "Universal" Cancer Vaccine series. And, INO has adjuvant / combinational technologies such as Immune Boosters(Activators) & Monoclonal Antibody technologies (possibly INO's version of DNA-based Checkpoint Inhibitors) that can help thrust over hurdles that may lie ahead.)." Now obviously, nextbigthingsss is just one opinion. But it captures the, “Chance favors the prepared mind” ethic – not the, “It doesn’t hurt to wait” booby-trap.

    POINT 6: THE ARTICLE SAID: “Here's what you need to know about this stock.” Blah blah blah....

    REBUTTAL: TO PROSPECTIVE INOVIO INVESTORS: Read the Inovio website; view the videos; check out the Facebook & some of the Yahoo groups of investors who actively dissect the science. In other words, do your own due diligence, and recognize that hot biotechs are colonized by parasitic or sensational and lazy journalism, which plays on investor fears to divest you of your hard-earned shares – or to keep you from getting any before they rocket to fame. Don’t believe anything unless you have direct links – or can Google key words/phrases and verify the information with credibleor peer-reviewed research articles. This is one stock where doing aggressive due diligence is highly warranted. The science is complex (it is DNA nanotechnology, after all) – but Inovio’s results are so far-reaching and spectacular (UNIVERSAL CANCER VACCINE, ANYONE?)– and reported across so many media - that your job is made infinitely easier, than if you rely on shoddy opinion pieces on The Motley Fool.

    As many comments have noted, you’ve done better in the past; this was not your finest hour. Perhaps Slunty101 captured it best: “You're young...just learn from it, grow and move on!” Or make things worse by ignoring well-deserved critique of an abysmally incoherent article that could cause serious damage to the naive or time-pressed investor. Sometimes, you just gotta suck it in, recognize that you blew it, and move on....

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 9:16 AM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    Sad thing is, you spent hours upon hours writing that "rebuttal," yet no argument made actually retorted claims made by my article. That is perhaps the saddest excuse for a counter argument that I've ever seen on SA or MF.

    I feel bad for you.

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 9:40 AM, Chapman03030303 wrote:

    No argument made to retort your claims???? Trevor, with all due respect, you should re-read Sciencebased posts....you are obviously missing all the facts that you missed the first go-around with your awful article.

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Sciencebased1K wrote:

    No worries Trevor, it's no skin off my teeth to write a detailed rebuttal. As I said, I consider it a public service in the face of such a monumentally flawed investment article.

    However, I am reminded of the many times that I've been served by a first-day retail service worker. They're nervous, awkward, and I DO feel empathy for them as they bumble around, making rookie mistakes. Pretty much all of us have been there. 9 times out of 10, they appreciate hearing, "Hey kid, I've BEEN there. Don't worry about your mistakes; shake it off, LEARN from it, and move forward".

    Obviously, it's your perogative to ignore objective feedback on the plethora of factual flaws in your article. Make that a pattern however, and it's no longer a mistake - it's a CHOICE. And when that choice bleeds into so-called investment advice, it can seriously hurt the neophyte or rushed investor - much less your reputation as a credible investment writer.

    I'll stick with thorough and meticulously detailed scientific research, rigorous and careful study of a mountain of boring facts, willingness to change my mind in the face of new and compelling information, and the investment mantra: "Chance Favors the Prepared Mind", ANY DAY, over rigid mediocrity, messy regurgitation of generalizations, and irrelevant platitudes about the biotech industry.

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 4:14 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    The real problem with Inovio is that is manufacturers its DNA vaccines through PCR methods. Newer companies creating novel, synthetic vaccines with next-generation DNA synthesis platforms can make a vaccine for $1 or less and tailor its function with more precision.

    Can explain further if anyone wants. Trevor, perhaps you could write a future article about it after reaching out.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 8:08 PM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    Hi Maxxwell,

    tmlowenthal@ucdavis.edu is my email. Feel free to reach out to me.

    Thanks,

    Trevor

  • Report this Comment On June 27, 2014, at 9:04 PM, Slunty101 wrote:

    This is a good opportunity. Trevor, I'm being real and sincere here. If you do choose to write another article on Inovio, you should do an awesome one that is unbiased and that helps explains the pros and cons to both sides. It will be difficult and take a great deal of effort and time. If you write a good one with In depth due diligence, I will be the first one to congratulate you! Writing an unbiased article detailing the scientific arguments from both those that are optimistic or pessimistic on Inovio's Cellectra technology is great! You would earn a great deal of respect and gain a lot of followers with this article. Bernie from Inovio's investor relations can be a great resource and he gets back to you in a timely matter. In fact if you contact Maxwell, you should also contact Sciencebased1k. They may have opposing opinions and this could be a good starting point for the direction of your research. Also, look into their other trials, their partnerships and the accolades of Dr. Kim and Dr. Weiner. It's very eye opening! I wish you good luck and I will eat my words if you are successful! FYI...I'm not being condencending. Remember, I was once like you. You have potential and no one respects someone more than a writer who puts in the leg work and has no other intentions (I.e. basher or pumper). Your interview with Dr. Kim was good. Build off that! Good luck...I truly mean it! I hope I didn't destroy your confidence, I can be harsh sometimes.

  • Report this Comment On June 28, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Madisonmc wrote:

    Hey Trevor. Looks like Richard Frank is plagiarizing from you! OR is the message from up top the same for both of you? Lol.

    Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc (NYSEMKT:INO): Was The Breakout Real Or Fake?

  • Report this Comment On June 28, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Madisonmc wrote:

    Word for word. "Are DNA vaccines still viable?

    It seems that as clinical trials progress into phase 2/3, DNA vaccines tend to produce suboptimal immune responses in humans, potentially lending credence to the bear case with respect to Inovio that VGX-3100 could be destined for a similar fate. Of course, since Inovio has yet to develop a commercial product since its inception, the bear case may be all the more relevant.

    Despite the fact that Inovio is planning on using its own immune activator called IL-12 as part of the vaccine regimen in further clinical testing of VGX-3100, there remains the looming concern that the enhancement may not significantly improve the prospects of success.

    Thus, while many are optimistic about VGX-3100, clinical failure would likely be catastrophic to shareholders as it is the lead clinical candidate at this time."

    By the way, who has looming concerns? Source?

  • Report this Comment On June 28, 2014, at 8:40 PM, Sciencebased1K wrote:

    Nice post slunty101 - I echo that sentiment... there's nothing like a classy comeback to re-engage readers.

    @Maxxwell, you raise a very interesting premise. I'd be curious whether NexGen vs PCR has any implications for patented Syn DNA. If it does, we need to know that. If it doesn't - doesn't it merely leave the door open for Inovio to upgrade its synthesis platforms in future, if necessary? Either way, yours is an original avenue of enquiry - would like to hear more on that.

  • Report this Comment On June 29, 2014, at 11:30 AM, TrevorLowenthal wrote:

    d

  • Report this Comment On July 02, 2014, at 2:58 AM, chris293 wrote:

    Buying Bio/Techs before positive sales and earnings really are just bets on these stocks

    Most of these comments seemed concerned about the upper lines and not about what really matter in stocks is the bottom line. How can companies have skyrocketing sales without any margins. Where is the money going? I know employees and executives should earn reasonable pay for their efforts and costs need to be controlled for profits that in turn be enjoyed by the shareholders of companies at a proper time by increased value and/or dividends.

    To me, the upper lines are the engineering and science behind products is very important to having a profitable bottom line. All the above factors are to help the true investor pick which company to buy shares of.

  • Report this Comment On July 11, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Cytotoxic wrote:

    Its not the abundance of t cells ... its the ability to generate High Affinity T cells that are potent at the tumour site .. cancer does turn off T cells with ease that's why Ctl-4 and pd1 have been developed, but these target all cells so can have adverse events which are not so desirable this highlights the issues.

    http://www.scancell.co.uk/AssetLibrary/PDFs/CommentaryScance....

    The science is spectacular, but a classic example is the use of IL 12 .. its a worry because it indicates that without boosting the T cell generated by Inovios approach is not good enough to fire up The Dendritic cells

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2999111, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/23/2014 5:08:07 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement