Post by JHam on Aug 2, 2014 1:06:15 GMT
I wanted to try and do my own semi-contrarian argument about ONCS just to give some balance to my other posts.
Someone I really respect told me a few days ago that investing in ONCS at this moment is "like throwing darts at a board and hoping to hit the bullseye". I actually don't disagree with this statement.
If ONCS can prove that what they are saying is true, then I think there is great potential here. The problem is they haven't proven anything yet to be quite honest. They have reported positive data results so far on ImmunoPulse as a monotherapy, but there are several companies out there that have done the same with their own immunotherapy approaches. When it comes to using ImmunoPulse as a combined therapy with an anti-PD1, early indications are that it works. However, even Dr. Pierce acknowledges that they are not yet exactly sure how it is works and why it is working.
Then there is the issue with electroporation. A few decades of trials haven't really turned out too much to be quite honest. I think many feel that electroporation in itself is garbage science. So ONCS is going to need do a lot to prove that their platform works.
On the flipside. Where ONCS is slightly different than other companies dabbling in electroporation, is their use of IL-12. This is what they have patented and what separates them (in my opinion) from other companies. The use of IL-12 through electroporation is also what would be appealing to big pharma as it is, what many feel, the potential key to turning PD-1 non-responders into responders. Any big pharma wanting to use this method of electroporation/IL-12 would have to go through ONCS.
Again though, they need to show more data and evidence that it works. While personally I believe the chances are good that it does work and based on recent corporate moves I believe the company also thinks it works, until they prove it, it is like throwing dart at the board and hoping for a bullseye.
Someone I really respect told me a few days ago that investing in ONCS at this moment is "like throwing darts at a board and hoping to hit the bullseye". I actually don't disagree with this statement.
If ONCS can prove that what they are saying is true, then I think there is great potential here. The problem is they haven't proven anything yet to be quite honest. They have reported positive data results so far on ImmunoPulse as a monotherapy, but there are several companies out there that have done the same with their own immunotherapy approaches. When it comes to using ImmunoPulse as a combined therapy with an anti-PD1, early indications are that it works. However, even Dr. Pierce acknowledges that they are not yet exactly sure how it is works and why it is working.
Then there is the issue with electroporation. A few decades of trials haven't really turned out too much to be quite honest. I think many feel that electroporation in itself is garbage science. So ONCS is going to need do a lot to prove that their platform works.
On the flipside. Where ONCS is slightly different than other companies dabbling in electroporation, is their use of IL-12. This is what they have patented and what separates them (in my opinion) from other companies. The use of IL-12 through electroporation is also what would be appealing to big pharma as it is, what many feel, the potential key to turning PD-1 non-responders into responders. Any big pharma wanting to use this method of electroporation/IL-12 would have to go through ONCS.
Again though, they need to show more data and evidence that it works. While personally I believe the chances are good that it does work and based on recent corporate moves I believe the company also thinks it works, until they prove it, it is like throwing dart at the board and hoping for a bullseye.