Immupharma Share Discussion Threads

[andyr42] 23/9/2020 12:33

MM who the Fk r u anyway? Go away and let nobhead answer my questions then you being his asrse licker. nobhead was incessantly attached to IMM a couple of years ago. Hopefully IMM will rise again if only to shut nobhead.

[nobbygnome] 22/9/2020 21:44

Yes I have increased my SNG holding. I think approval is very near....

[nobbygnome] 22/9/2020 19:05

>> Maria

Yet another name,; I can't keep up! And what happened to my champagne😆😆....

I don't trust a word Tim ever says. He has ensured he can continue to trouser his monthly dosh for the next few years whilst we all wait for the next negative Lupuzor trial result.

The new programs may be interesting but show me the money. His past record suggests they will flatter to deceive....

[best1467] 22/9/2020 07:37

The word (Expect) is unusual and interesting in the Context of RNS

[divmad] 18/9/2020 19:17

Is this falling to the 11p renegotiated floor price?

[sicilian_kan] 17/9/2020 11:27

Hi Divmad

1. If the two products pass the bio equivalence study, why would anyone use the old products?

2. Current market cap £30m. You are sniffing at revenues of many multiples of that per year and which would dwarf the current market cap.

[divmad] 17/9/2020 11:04

I hear what you're saying, S_K, but on the most optimistic assumption that you used for Lupuzor gaining a market share peak of 25% and applying that percentage of sales to the two other products in IMM's portfolio, suggests peak sales from these two products, if both successful, of some $225mn. I don't see where this metric gets IMM to another level of valuation.

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 20:09

Agreed wigwammer.

I'm sure the LTHs here will remember that Immunomedics had epratuzumab, which failed its Phase 3 lupus trial in 2015. The Immunomedics share price tanked, collapsing to $2.05. UCB pulled out of the collaboration.

Yesterday, just 5 years later, Immunomedics was bought by Gilead for $88 per share, a 44-bagger!

I'm not saying that will happen here. What I am saying is exactly what you have quoted wigwammer, namely that there are two relatively near term opportunities that would dwarf the current market cap if successful and which appear to be completely ignored in the current market cap.

And we have the Phase 3 trial that Avion will be running for Immupharma too, in lupus. Trial paid for by Avion with Immupharma retaining all European rights plus getting a royalty of up to 17% on US sales, plus milestones. Plus Immupharma is now fully funded through to the end of 2023, as a result of the recent placing, so no dilution.

In short, there are a number of irons in the fire and there should also be (never guaranteed of course) opportunities to top slice like last time and to have a free carry.

Below again are the products:

BioGlucagon - Existing glucagon products; poor solubility, inconvenient - variable dosing creates risks for patients. BioGlucagon has 100% solubility, can be formulated in pre-filled syringe pens and could be used in insulin pumps. Sales of existing products approx. $500m (p.a.). Bio equivalence study, with potential market launch date in 2022. Partnering opportunities.

BioAMP-B - offers a potential improvement on Amphotericin-B (“Amp-B”). Amp-B one of the few effective treatments for serious and life threatening fungal infections such as aspergillosis (lung infection). Leading AMP-B, ‘Ambisome’ causes serious kidney
toxicity in c.15% of patients. BioAMP-B’s target profile has superior safety profile to Ambisome. Sales of Ambisome in 2019 were $407m (p.a.). Next steps: Bio equivalence study, with potential market launch date in 2022.

See

[wigwammer] 15/9/2020 18:48

Bang on, sk. The story is now more than lupuzor. "IMM's pipeline which I think are also quite exciting..... both seem to have near term opportunities (market launch / partnering) and both would dwarf the current market cap if successful. They appear to be completely ignored in the current market cap"

[colsmith] 15/9/2020 17:18

Guys, one can have an opinion on anything, such as the Moon is made of cheese, but practicality is the only thing that counts. Either the stats show it works or not, but stats are just that subject to interpretation (not absolute) but presumably give enough justification for regulatory approval - the same goes I guess for the myriad of Covid 19 drugs. Perhaps a critical part of the results are the side effects. Anyhow I guess if a company is prepared to fork out $25M then there is presumably confidence that the gamble is worth while - maybe suggesting in their view its actually better than evens it will show statistical relevance.

As a question - is it likely that a Government would ever make a covid 19 drug mandatory? Side effects could perhaps raise the issue that such a Government would face legal action if a person suffered baldly linked to a known side effect.

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 16:11

Similarly - on both counts!

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 15:53

s_k

You know that I have the ultimate respect for your views! However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of them.....

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 15:51

According to that logic, you must concede that I haven't lost nobby

[brad44] 15/9/2020 15:27

nobhead has "issues" with sylviane as she completely ignored his "O" level (Grade D) analysis of her research, and his offer to help when he wasnt behind the chemist counter at Boots. He may also have issues with Tim, but then most of us do...

[supernumerary] 15/9/2020 15:26

COL - 'there is at least logic to that as any other figure can't be justified but throw of a coin can!'

What makes you think it's a coin, not a die? I've got one of them with 20 sides!

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 15:25

>> s_k

My point is that everyone always says if the FDA, David Eisenberg (or any other expert) and a licensing company all 'support' the program, then it must be ok. The reality is the FDA, experts and sometimes another company 'support' all the drugs which fail and there are many of those particularly in lupus. You can fool yourself that this all validates the drug in some way but there is plenty of evidence from history that it does nothing of the sort! I am afraid that statement is irrefutable....

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 15:18

Personally, I do not see why world leaders in their field would associate themselves with Lupuzor if you are right (no chance of success and a deluded management team). It would be a complete waste of their very valuable time. This doesn't mean to say it will succeed, just that it is not a treatment without merit or hope as you suggest.

[nobbygnome] 15/9/2020 15:13

David Eisenberg was on the advisory board for the drug I was talking about too. Of course they are interested scientifically in any new approach. Again their involvement really doesn't validate the drug in any way. I have attended and presented to numerous rheumatology advisory boards and it was like a bear pit where they tried to metaphorically tear you limb from limb. Sensible companies get experts on their ad boards who are sceptical about their approach. An echo chamber in that circumastance is completely pointless....

[sicilian_kan] 15/9/2020 15:07

If you are right, why are lupus luminaries as eminent as Dr Dan Wallace and Prof David Isenberg, still supporting the company? Are you suggesting that they are deluded too?