PPHM Discussion 08/30/2014 15:35:37 $PPHM
Why has pphm not released this data if true? What ever became of those early censored?
The DA is waiting to file a criminal case until the civil suit is settled? Funny how the bunker mentality as you put it plays very nicely into their corporate structure. A bod that works for mgmt. not shareholders, mgmt. provides hugely inappropriate compensation to keep bod in their pocket, retail shareholders pay for all this largess while mgmt. contemptuously provides little to no pr or other info to shareholders.
PPHM Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Peregrine-Pharmac...PHM-55152/
IMO one of the most important posts about the sabotage dose switching is cjgaddy's post #174469. He shows how the high dose MOS was actually 133%(or more!)better than the placebo MOS. An analysis of Phase II trial results showed that ALL(100%) that had at least a 40% MOS advantage over placebo were approved after Phase III! 133% is a lot better than 40%...I am confident we will see great Phase III results...and some form of early approval!
For PPHM (IR) it (the sabotage dose switching) will not be over until:
- the Class Action appeal is berried (even though they know the outcome)
- the lawsuit against CSM is over
- the criminal case against the "she" will have been made or settled by disclosure of who's behind it.
Then they may come out of the bunker. Until then they'll see every question or action they don't understand as a possible interference or attempt of manipulation or possible incitement of an error on their behalve that may endanger their cases or PPHM as a hole. Normal, they don't know who the enemy is.
And you know what? I think that is, at least for the moment, the correct attitude.
That being said, disclosing some more detail about patient enrolment in 2nd ln NSCLC would hurt as it doesn't really fall in the above risk if it is done intelligently.
Hi, Geo. I agree with most of what you say. I usually agree with what you have to say.
The one thing about Peregrine IR that I sense that perhaps you don't is what might be called "a bunker mentality". After you've been bombarded by difficult times for a period, some have a tendency to assume all contact from the outside world is another assault.
I like to think that Peregrine's difficult times are over, and that Peregrine IR can come up out of the bunker and relate more freely with those of us on the outside.
GLTA, Paul
Agreed. So the absence of an announcement of a 50% milestone etc. can only be reasonably interpreted as they have not gotten there yet.
Quote:
Chris Keenan has always been honest and professional when ever I have a question 24/7 and I thank him. I hope he's paid well.
I will have to say the repore between CK and myself has not always been good and at time quite intense. Prior to CK, as discussed, my persistence has led to a cease and desist letter earned. Also, previously, my feelings as to CK and his attitude have been made clear.
However, the last several exchanges have been quite pleasant with CK and so it is important that I also make that known. He has been patient, informative, and fairly pleasant. I would also include that he portrayed these more approachable traits in spite of the fact that he has been taking a beating by some (no names mentioned) that have not shared my current feelings when speaking with him.
Take it from one who knows, we are only going to get from IR what they are allowed to give and the explanations, at least for me, have been better when I was more polite.
Paul
As a SH we are entitled to the information that is deemed materially important. That is it. If we want more than that we have the right to sell our shares and move on.
Having said that, IMO the company has told us they have dosed patients and they are on track to meet the two year complete enrollment period. In my exchange with IR they have indicated they will do what is mandatory and normal for the industry and could possibly include similar percentage milestones as seen in the other examples ONCE THE MILESTONES ARE REACHED.
For some reason (maybe Fargo or lawsuit, etc) they and most of the industry finds it wise to keep the specifics of these trial enrollment numbers under wraps except for the milestone statement and percentages mentioned above.
My guess is they are fairly intelligent people also and for someone think otherwise would indicate some attributes other than intelligence. According to them, they are doing what they feel is best for the company and the SH.
I guess we can accept that or move on. I was also told the ASM is a wonderful place to voice your concerns.
Hi Robert, I really should go to the ASM. I live in Long Beach, CA. So, it's only a 40 minute drive to Tustin.
I am hanging in there with Peregrine until the Sunrise trial spits out some data. It better be good or we might see another terrible drop in SP. I am expecting good to great data.
I am anxious to know when that data is likely to come out. That is why I am attempting to convince management to be more forthcoming about the Sunrise trial's progress. I do not expect to succeed in the effort, but nothing ventured nothing gained.
Enjoy your weekend, Paul
Paul, go to the ASM. It'll keep you going for another year.
RCJ
Peregrine management. I like what they are doing with Bavi. I like the initiative to test Bavi with other immunotherapies. I don't know how likely success is, but so far it looks very promising.
I love what Peregrine management has done to push Bavi against NSCLC. I love how they resurrected the Phase II trial. I love how they got FDA approval for the Phase III trial. I love how they've managed the world wide Sunrise launch with sites opening almost daily for months.
I love how they've managed to finance the Sunrise trial without undue dilution of our ownership.
I just wish they could provide more information to us on all their efforts, particularly the Sunrise trial. I know there are arguments to keep data in-house, but we shareholders have been through a world of misery over the last years. Our extraordinary loyalty should be rewarded by extraordinary efforts by management to thank us. Just my opinion.
GLTA, Paul
Reread your post and think of the author attached to an electric shock machine.
I know CK has been under pressure from management/lawyers and shareholders so I give him some credit.
Has Rob Garnick made any comments lately? Since he is in charge of the regulatory process it would be nice to hear from him.
LOL!
Well said. BOD well paid and mooching free (or cheap) shares. A travesty.
Hope he is paid well? For a company with no products, who is funded by shareholders I have never seen so many people paid so well. And the bod being paid more than board members overseeing billions in revenue and profit from fortune 500 companies with international operations is absurd. A huge red flag to any non - retail investor. Oh and they have no industry experience or contacts - what a scam!
PPHM 2nd ln NSCLC SUNRISE Update
Date of Post
Currently Opened Centres 133 From US filings
Surely Remaining Centres 34 From European filings
Temporary Total 167
Initially announced Centres 150 Statement CC/Shan
Total Estimated Centres 175-200 Ukraine/Singapore
Patients per day needed 0.79 To enrol 582 per DEC 2015
Patients to be On Track Today 191 Since DEC 30th, 2013
Patients Enrolled According SIMUL 190 Used 0.5 pat/cent/month
PS: PPHM needs to enrol 0.79 patients per day on average to enrol 582 patients at the target date for end of enrolment DEC 2015. Today that would result in the above On Track data. It is a LINEAR worst case assumption, assuming they NEVER get ahead of schedule and a LINEAR best case assumption, assuming they never get behind schedule and so stay On Track according Shang's used terminology. With the hockey stick we know that isn't the case but the daily need remains because it is ON AVERAGE.
It would mean we had 120 patients in MAY 2014 if Shan's statement was accurate and linear while the simulation only projected 34 patients end MAY 2014, moment at which 33 centres were added at once. This shows that the simulation is VERY conservative (it will catch up as of Aug 30th 2014) and is not linear (as it takes into account the precise date now that the centres where opened).
It does not take into account individual centres when more then 1 was opened the same day, hence there is no adjustment for centres recruiting more SIMULATED patients then their assigned number (European Protocol). This will introduce a margin of error as of the moment a centre, or a country, should have reached its maximum assigned number of patients.
In this simulation that would be 6 to 8 months after opening for most European centres that may recruit an average of 3.xx patients per centre and 12-14 months for Spain who is an exception. I will not comment on Greece as I thing the protocol contains errors (120 patients for 9 centres seems odd. However if that were correct the error will be minimized because at 0.5 simulated patients enrolled per month their error will only show after 24 months which would be behind DEC 2015.
For the US+World of which we have no detailed information on patient assignment per country except 582-345=237 in total the average is just not 4 patients per centre. So there is also an 8 month delay on possible errors and that will start weighting at the end of this year.
So I am quite confident in the simulation to be not to far off until MAR-JUN 2015 given the paste at which centres were added in the different regions of the world.
I may have found an indirect way to fine tune as I was told import/export of controlled substances (Bavituximab is one such substance) is public record in some countries. I would then assume that PPHM doesn't send out Bavituximab to places where there are no patients to treat. Using an average weight, for those Stage III and IV quite sick patients of 55Kg body weight and assuming 50% is randomized into placebo, we may be able to tune more if PPHM doesn't give us updates. I'll see if I can find public records but that isn't really my cup of tea.
PPHM Annual Meeting 16 October 2014
http://ir.peregrineinc.com/events.cfm
Irvine Mariot
18000 Von Karmen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
MD, nobody is saying anything about Chris C of PPHM's IR Dept. honesty, AT ALL!
And let's hope Frustration skips your post or he may throw you some "family emergency" story by IR dating from just behind PPHM's the dose switching incident.
Remember, the reason why PPHM, in Sept 2012, cancelled Credit Swiss and our 2nd ln NSCLC presentation at the conference in Vienna. I am not saying it wasn't true, but honestly saying that I had no doubt at all at the time would be a lie.
Today, and with hindsight, knowing that we were dealing with an act of sabotage and that PPHM must have been suspecting/knowing that from the beginning because they qualified the problem immediately as dose switching at a 3rd party CRO - and certainly now that we had Masten's and Shan's testimony's - it is clear that IR's hands must have been tied.
It was also from that time that we know that an external 3rd party was investigating and hence even the very fact that the dose switching was detected may have been information nobody wanted to disclose in order to have an advantage on those that did it (eg: keep the "she" from moving out of the country for instance ,sponsored by the party on the back).
That doesn't take away that 190K increase of the E&Y invoicing, mostly for auditing, is a lot for the auditing of 4 dividend payments on a not to long list of PPHMP share holders at the transfer agent per each target date. PPHMP is only quoted since FEB 20th see here and therefore is only in the that Fiscal year for FEB (8 days), MAR, APR and for only ONE dividend payment.
Quote:
“This is tied to the increased number of filings including those tied to the preferred offering and quarterly dividends.”
If PPHM paid that kind of money for that one dividend payment and related listing then I hold my breath for the next invoice that will have 4 and which has also a new offering of extra PPHMP.
And after the corporal's post about clear difference between auditing and consultancy services I wonder that if we would look into the fine print there may not have been some consultancy invoiced as auditing.
No matter what IR's answer is, and I thank CJ for getting that, this still doesn't sit well with me for now. Maybe it will clear up the coming period after some more in depth research
In all cases it has my attention for now.
Why has pphm not released this data if true? What ever became of those early censored?
The DA is waiting to file a criminal case until the civil suit is settled? Funny how the bunker mentality as you put it plays very nicely into their corporate structure. A bod that works for mgmt. not shareholders, mgmt. provides hugely inappropriate compensation to keep bod in their pocket, retail shareholders pay for all this largess while mgmt. contemptuously provides little to no pr or other info to shareholders.
PPHM Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Peregrine-Pharmac...PHM-55152/
IMO one of the most important posts about the sabotage dose switching is cjgaddy's post #174469. He shows how the high dose MOS was actually 133%(or more!)better than the placebo MOS. An analysis of Phase II trial results showed that ALL(100%) that had at least a 40% MOS advantage over placebo were approved after Phase III! 133% is a lot better than 40%...I am confident we will see great Phase III results...and some form of early approval!
For PPHM (IR) it (the sabotage dose switching) will not be over until:
- the Class Action appeal is berried (even though they know the outcome)
- the lawsuit against CSM is over
- the criminal case against the "she" will have been made or settled by disclosure of who's behind it.
Then they may come out of the bunker. Until then they'll see every question or action they don't understand as a possible interference or attempt of manipulation or possible incitement of an error on their behalve that may endanger their cases or PPHM as a hole. Normal, they don't know who the enemy is.
And you know what? I think that is, at least for the moment, the correct attitude.
That being said, disclosing some more detail about patient enrolment in 2nd ln NSCLC would hurt as it doesn't really fall in the above risk if it is done intelligently.
Hi, Geo. I agree with most of what you say. I usually agree with what you have to say.
The one thing about Peregrine IR that I sense that perhaps you don't is what might be called "a bunker mentality". After you've been bombarded by difficult times for a period, some have a tendency to assume all contact from the outside world is another assault.
I like to think that Peregrine's difficult times are over, and that Peregrine IR can come up out of the bunker and relate more freely with those of us on the outside.
GLTA, Paul
Agreed. So the absence of an announcement of a 50% milestone etc. can only be reasonably interpreted as they have not gotten there yet.
Quote:
Chris Keenan has always been honest and professional when ever I have a question 24/7 and I thank him. I hope he's paid well.
I will have to say the repore between CK and myself has not always been good and at time quite intense. Prior to CK, as discussed, my persistence has led to a cease and desist letter earned. Also, previously, my feelings as to CK and his attitude have been made clear.
However, the last several exchanges have been quite pleasant with CK and so it is important that I also make that known. He has been patient, informative, and fairly pleasant. I would also include that he portrayed these more approachable traits in spite of the fact that he has been taking a beating by some (no names mentioned) that have not shared my current feelings when speaking with him.
Take it from one who knows, we are only going to get from IR what they are allowed to give and the explanations, at least for me, have been better when I was more polite.
Paul
As a SH we are entitled to the information that is deemed materially important. That is it. If we want more than that we have the right to sell our shares and move on.
Having said that, IMO the company has told us they have dosed patients and they are on track to meet the two year complete enrollment period. In my exchange with IR they have indicated they will do what is mandatory and normal for the industry and could possibly include similar percentage milestones as seen in the other examples ONCE THE MILESTONES ARE REACHED.
For some reason (maybe Fargo or lawsuit, etc) they and most of the industry finds it wise to keep the specifics of these trial enrollment numbers under wraps except for the milestone statement and percentages mentioned above.
My guess is they are fairly intelligent people also and for someone think otherwise would indicate some attributes other than intelligence. According to them, they are doing what they feel is best for the company and the SH.
I guess we can accept that or move on. I was also told the ASM is a wonderful place to voice your concerns.
Hi Robert, I really should go to the ASM. I live in Long Beach, CA. So, it's only a 40 minute drive to Tustin.
I am hanging in there with Peregrine until the Sunrise trial spits out some data. It better be good or we might see another terrible drop in SP. I am expecting good to great data.
I am anxious to know when that data is likely to come out. That is why I am attempting to convince management to be more forthcoming about the Sunrise trial's progress. I do not expect to succeed in the effort, but nothing ventured nothing gained.
Enjoy your weekend, Paul
Paul, go to the ASM. It'll keep you going for another year.
RCJ
Peregrine management. I like what they are doing with Bavi. I like the initiative to test Bavi with other immunotherapies. I don't know how likely success is, but so far it looks very promising.
I love what Peregrine management has done to push Bavi against NSCLC. I love how they resurrected the Phase II trial. I love how they got FDA approval for the Phase III trial. I love how they've managed the world wide Sunrise launch with sites opening almost daily for months.
I love how they've managed to finance the Sunrise trial without undue dilution of our ownership.
I just wish they could provide more information to us on all their efforts, particularly the Sunrise trial. I know there are arguments to keep data in-house, but we shareholders have been through a world of misery over the last years. Our extraordinary loyalty should be rewarded by extraordinary efforts by management to thank us. Just my opinion.
GLTA, Paul
Reread your post and think of the author attached to an electric shock machine.
I know CK has been under pressure from management/lawyers and shareholders so I give him some credit.
Has Rob Garnick made any comments lately? Since he is in charge of the regulatory process it would be nice to hear from him.
LOL!
Well said. BOD well paid and mooching free (or cheap) shares. A travesty.
Hope he is paid well? For a company with no products, who is funded by shareholders I have never seen so many people paid so well. And the bod being paid more than board members overseeing billions in revenue and profit from fortune 500 companies with international operations is absurd. A huge red flag to any non - retail investor. Oh and they have no industry experience or contacts - what a scam!
PPHM 2nd ln NSCLC SUNRISE Update
Date of Post
Currently Opened Centres 133 From US filings
Surely Remaining Centres 34 From European filings
Temporary Total 167
Initially announced Centres 150 Statement CC/Shan
Total Estimated Centres 175-200 Ukraine/Singapore
Patients per day needed 0.79 To enrol 582 per DEC 2015
Patients to be On Track Today 191 Since DEC 30th, 2013
Patients Enrolled According SIMUL 190 Used 0.5 pat/cent/month
PS: PPHM needs to enrol 0.79 patients per day on average to enrol 582 patients at the target date for end of enrolment DEC 2015. Today that would result in the above On Track data. It is a LINEAR worst case assumption, assuming they NEVER get ahead of schedule and a LINEAR best case assumption, assuming they never get behind schedule and so stay On Track according Shang's used terminology. With the hockey stick we know that isn't the case but the daily need remains because it is ON AVERAGE.
It would mean we had 120 patients in MAY 2014 if Shan's statement was accurate and linear while the simulation only projected 34 patients end MAY 2014, moment at which 33 centres were added at once. This shows that the simulation is VERY conservative (it will catch up as of Aug 30th 2014) and is not linear (as it takes into account the precise date now that the centres where opened).
It does not take into account individual centres when more then 1 was opened the same day, hence there is no adjustment for centres recruiting more SIMULATED patients then their assigned number (European Protocol). This will introduce a margin of error as of the moment a centre, or a country, should have reached its maximum assigned number of patients.
In this simulation that would be 6 to 8 months after opening for most European centres that may recruit an average of 3.xx patients per centre and 12-14 months for Spain who is an exception. I will not comment on Greece as I thing the protocol contains errors (120 patients for 9 centres seems odd. However if that were correct the error will be minimized because at 0.5 simulated patients enrolled per month their error will only show after 24 months which would be behind DEC 2015.
For the US+World of which we have no detailed information on patient assignment per country except 582-345=237 in total the average is just not 4 patients per centre. So there is also an 8 month delay on possible errors and that will start weighting at the end of this year.
So I am quite confident in the simulation to be not to far off until MAR-JUN 2015 given the paste at which centres were added in the different regions of the world.
I may have found an indirect way to fine tune as I was told import/export of controlled substances (Bavituximab is one such substance) is public record in some countries. I would then assume that PPHM doesn't send out Bavituximab to places where there are no patients to treat. Using an average weight, for those Stage III and IV quite sick patients of 55Kg body weight and assuming 50% is randomized into placebo, we may be able to tune more if PPHM doesn't give us updates. I'll see if I can find public records but that isn't really my cup of tea.
PPHM Annual Meeting 16 October 2014
http://ir.peregrineinc.com/events.cfm
Irvine Mariot
18000 Von Karmen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
MD, nobody is saying anything about Chris C of PPHM's IR Dept. honesty, AT ALL!
And let's hope Frustration skips your post or he may throw you some "family emergency" story by IR dating from just behind PPHM's the dose switching incident.
Remember, the reason why PPHM, in Sept 2012, cancelled Credit Swiss and our 2nd ln NSCLC presentation at the conference in Vienna. I am not saying it wasn't true, but honestly saying that I had no doubt at all at the time would be a lie.
Today, and with hindsight, knowing that we were dealing with an act of sabotage and that PPHM must have been suspecting/knowing that from the beginning because they qualified the problem immediately as dose switching at a 3rd party CRO - and certainly now that we had Masten's and Shan's testimony's - it is clear that IR's hands must have been tied.
It was also from that time that we know that an external 3rd party was investigating and hence even the very fact that the dose switching was detected may have been information nobody wanted to disclose in order to have an advantage on those that did it (eg: keep the "she" from moving out of the country for instance ,sponsored by the party on the back).
That doesn't take away that 190K increase of the E&Y invoicing, mostly for auditing, is a lot for the auditing of 4 dividend payments on a not to long list of PPHMP share holders at the transfer agent per each target date. PPHMP is only quoted since FEB 20th see here and therefore is only in the that Fiscal year for FEB (8 days), MAR, APR and for only ONE dividend payment.
Quote:
“This is tied to the increased number of filings including those tied to the preferred offering and quarterly dividends.”
If PPHM paid that kind of money for that one dividend payment and related listing then I hold my breath for the next invoice that will have 4 and which has also a new offering of extra PPHMP.
And after the corporal's post about clear difference between auditing and consultancy services I wonder that if we would look into the fine print there may not have been some consultancy invoiced as auditing.
No matter what IR's answer is, and I thank CJ for getting that, this still doesn't sit well with me for now. Maybe it will clear up the coming period after some more in depth research
In all cases it has my attention for now. 
