craig76
9 years ago
And another post by JD. This explains why BTIs business model is the key to success.
I'm not too interested in studying the pharmacokinetics (PK) and relative efficacy of the many versions of an enzyme that treat a given LSD. In fact, I'm not too interested in those details for any therapeutics. If a pharma is interested in transporting a given therapeutic into the brain then that's all I'm interested in. I would think that biOasis has the same attitude. We're not interested in taking on the risks associated with all the therapeutics out there.
The biOasis business model pretty much demands an agnostic approach to therapeutics. If Shire wants to license Elaprase then I guess that MTfp-Elaprase would be their fusion protein of choice for MPS II. If somebody else wants the LSD license, I would think that they have an enzyme structure in mind for MPS II. Why should we care? Whatever the pharmas might have, including Shire with Elaprase, they have nothing compared to whoever can get it into the brain. biOasis will license the Transcend LSD rights to the highest bidder and the winner will choose the enzyme structures.
Remember that the different versions of any protein are created to satisfy many criteria including efficacy, safety, PK, cost of manufacture, IP protection, competition, etc. When any therapeutic is bolted onto MTfp, it instantly becomes a patentable new chemical entity.
With respect to the high costs of the rare disease therapies such as Elaprase, probably only a small part of that cost has anything to do with manufacturing costs. Whether there are 2000 patients worldwide or 2,000,000, it costs about the same to develop a therapeutic and to put it through trials, although many of the orphan drug and other fast track policies of the FDA do mitigate some of those costs. Nevertheless, the high cost of these drugs has everything to do with the cost of developing the drugs and the cost of doing business rather than the cost of manufacture.
But make no mistake, these drugs can be costly to manufacture and the pharmas will do what they can to cut costs. Again, this is the beauty of the biOasis business model. If the exclusivity of a therapeutic is a criteria for the commercial success of the therapeutic, then Elaprase seems to be a perfect example of that. But Shire had to put a lot of effort and money into achieving that exclusivity. Some other company can achieve the same exclusivity by simply bolting MTfp onto I2S, just as biOasis and Scarpa have done, and suddenly Elaprase, however unique it might be, is relegated to history.
As a business model, you couldn't ask for a better situation, and this is something that too many investors don't understand. We're a carrier. We're FedEx. We don't care what's in the package. We just promise that we'll get it to New York by noon tomorrow. That's it. And we're better at it than anybody else. It actually looks like we're the only one that can do it.
The bottom line is this, however great Elaprase might be, Shire can't get it into the brain without using a pump and a hose connected directly into the spinal column. However great the engineering is, it's still brings to mind something essentially medieval. Time moves on, discoveries are made, old methods are dropped. If MTfp-I2S effectively treats MPS II in both the brain and periphery, as has been shown by biOasis in mice, then that's where the business will go.
FedEx: When it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.
biOasis: When it absolutely, positively has to be there right now
craig76
9 years ago
biOasis Technologies Inc. and Brigham and Women's Hospital Inc., Enter a Neuro-Oncology Research & Collaboration Agreement
Published: July 21, 2015 5:01 p.m. ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Jul 21, 2015 (Marketwired via COMTEX) -- biOasis (otcqx:BIOAF)(BTI) and Brigham and Women's Hospital Inc. ("BWH"), Harvard Medical School's distinguished teaching hospital, have entered into a collaboration to pursue work in the area of neuro-oncology.
Dr. Sean Lawler, researcher in the Department of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School, will lead the BWH team.
The collaboration intends to initially focus on the advancement to clinic of the Transcend peptide carrier, MTfp, including MTfp-TZM, MTfp-siRNA and MTfp-miRNA within GBM (glioblastoma) models.
BIOASIS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (otcqx:BIOAF)(BTI), a pioneering biopharmaceutical company focused on overcoming the limitations of therapeutic drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier (BBB), announced today that it is entered into a Research Collaboration Agreement with Brigham and Women's Hospital Inc.
Using biOasis's Transcend Platform peptide carrier, MTfp, biOasis and researchers lead by Dr. Sean Lawler from the Department of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School, will work to deliver a number of compounds targeting glioblastoma tumors within the brain. The initial focus of the collaboration will be on the compounds, MTfp-TZM, MTfp-siRNA and MTfp-miRNA. The work will include moving the trastuzumab program forward towards human clinical trials.
A major teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital was formed in 1980 with the merger of the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, the Robert Breck Brigham Hospital, and the Boston Hospital for Women, three of Boston's oldest and most prestigious Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals. The BWH website states that, "The BWH Research Institute (BRI) is one of the most powerful biomedical research institutes in the world and the second largest recipient of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding among independent hospitals in the United States."
Rob Hutchison, biOasis CEO, stated, "biOasis's Transcend Platform and our peptide carrier, MTfp, have shown exceptional promise in the area of neuro-oncology. As we work towards clinical work in humans, establishing relationships like this with world leaders in the field will be critical. BWH represents the ideal partner for biOasis for this collaboration and over the coming months, we will working closely with Sean and his team and lay out the program pathways. This work shall expand our neuro-oncology program that has so far provided us with such confidence in the Transcend platform and our peptide carrier, MTfp."
About BWH: http://brighamandwomens.org/about_bwh/about_us.aspx
About Transcend
Transcend is biOasis' proprietary platform for the delivery of therapeutics across the blood-brain barrier to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of metastatic brain cancers as well as neurodegenerative and metabolic diseases. The delivery of therapeutics across the blood-brain barrier represents the single greatest challenge in treating neurological disorders. The ability to effectively and safely transverse the blood-brain barrier with the Transcend peptide carrier, MTfp, offers the opportunity for biOasis to deliver therapeutics into the brain.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bioasis-technologies-inc-and-brigham-and-womens-hospital-inc-enter-a-neuro-oncology-research-collaboration-agreement-2015-07-21-17173113
craig76
9 years ago
Here is another post from JD. I have copied from Stockhouse.
When reading the post, keep in mind there is reference to idiots that know nothing about BTI and the Science (princeofcut, San Fran, etc) who JD has referred to in his post. Get past that, and pay attention to the billion dollar market and more importantly BTIs planned business model.
Here it is:
Well, let me explain! biOasis's Transcend (MTfp) is a platform technology, not a therapeutic. It does not treat brain diseases. Instead, it transports the treatments into the brain and, so far, it's the most able and safe means of doing so.
MTfp is a small peptide (short string of amino acids) with the ability to seek out and attach itself to the melanotransferrin (MTf) receptor on the endothelial cells of the brain's capillaries, otherwise known as the blood-brain barrier. Upon attachment to the BBB cells' MTf receptors, the BBB cells pull the peptide through the BBB cells and into the brain's parenchyma (the place where braincells reside). The MTfp peptide can be attached to almost any therapeutic from small molecules to full-sized proteins (such as monoclonal antibodies). If so attached then the MTfp peptide will also pull the therapeutic into the brain, thus delivering therapeutic into the brain parenchyma.
It has been estimated that if such a vector could be found, the resulting neurotherapeutic commercial markets could exceed $100 billion per year, which makes sense when we consider the need for treatments for brain tumours, Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, ALS, pain, metabolic disorders like Lysosomal Storage Diseases, etc. The need is huge and almost completely unmet.
Here's where princeofcut has so woefully fallen behind in his knowledge. biOasis and several pharmaceutical companies have identified about 200 therapeutics (for a host of indications) that MTfp can deliver to the brain. biOasis has chosen a couple of them to do in-house with the objective of keeping them and taking them into human clinical trials. The first is Herceptin. In separate animal models (studies), first at Texas Tech University with the chemical conjugate, MTf-TZM, and then at OncoDesign in France with the fusion protein, MTfp-TZM, biOasis was able to reduce HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases volume by over 85%. Herceptin alone could only achieve a 15% reduction in volume in brain tumours. biOasis has chosen to take this new drug, MTfp-TZM, into human trials.
Meanwhile, biOasis is doing a study in Italy with Enzyme Replacement Therapy for Lysosomal Storage diseases. Although biOasis may take this program into the clinic, it's more likely that biOasis could sell that program, possibly in the next few days or weeks. (It's worth $500 million to a billion, some say more, to biOasis.)
But the real business for biOasis, the one that princeofcut missed, is the BBB vector licensing business. It involves the other almost 200 therapeutics that biOasis has identified that require transport to the brain. They include new drugs for pain, Alzheimer's, MS, ALS, other types of brain cancer, etc etc.
Here's how it works. The pharmaceutical companies want to take these drugs into the clinic and eventually to commercialize them. They cannot do that unless they find a means of transporting them into the brain. Because biOasis has such a vector, MTfp, the only serious alternative, the pharmaceutical companies must use it for all of their neurotherapeutic studies and clinical trials.
And that means that biOasis will be generating revenue, probably a lot of it, before a single neurotherapeutic goes into human clinical trials. It's simple. The pharmas cannot get efficacious (or sufficiently efficacious) quantities of their neurotherapeutics across the BBB but biOasis can. They have to license MTfp in order to advance their drugs. They have to pay for that license. Moreover, it appears that most of them want exclusivity for particular indications. Imagine how much they'll have to pay to exclude their competitors for each disease! We'll discuss that as soon as SanFrancisco99 invites me again.
In short, unlike most biotechs, including RVX, biOasis will be paid by pharmas before anything goes into human trials. They must pay biOasis to take their neurotherapeutics into human trials. (That is the answer to your question G1945V.)
Investors here might want to investigate the possibilities and likely timetable for expected upcoming biOasis developments.
Meanwhile, I have to recognize BearDownAZ's excellent post earlier here. BearDownAZ is an interesting fellow. It has been clear from his RVX posts that he has extensive scientific knowledge and experience. Followers here, including SanFrancisco99, have applauded his many comments about Resverlogix. Although I was very pleased to see him starting to offer comments on the biOasis forum, I was even more pleased with his open-mindedness in the face of the attacks that biOasis has suffered on this forum. BearDownAZ is an independent thinker. But even more compelling was his recent announcement on the biOasis forum that he is a neuroscientist. He already knows about Receptor Mediated Transcytosis (or endocytosis, as he called it earlier). He understands the world of monoclonal antibodies like TZM (Trastuzumab or Herceptin). He just gets it. That understanding is going to make him some money, lots we think. As he stated, we did talk by phone. I asked him whether he was aware of a scientific paper that was produced at his University that related to a certain type of Receptor Mediated Transcytosis. He immediately named the author and details of the paper. BearDownAZ is who he says he is.
Princeofcut, the narcissistic, mirror-gazing, bombast blatherskite, also says something about clinical trials but he is completely unable to place the trial he references in the context of any of the three elements of biOasis's business models. With so many "ignores," who cares what he writes, much less what he thinks.
SanFrancisco99's comments about about me suggest that I post under three aliases. He's done this before. I have posted on the RVX forum for 10 years and during that time I posted first as "amorak", then "RiskyStox" and finally as "jdstox." I never used any of the aliases concurrently. With each change, I immediately announced the cancellation of the old one and the adoption of the new one. And that is part of the record, as SF99 well knows. His dishonestly is very evident on the issue.
SanFransisco99 has also used the word "scam" in his discussion of biOasis. If biOasis is a scam then The National Research Council of Canada, The University of British Columbia, Texas Tech University, MedImmune, Abbvie, Shire, UCB, Merck, Pfizer Canada, AstraZeneca, Quebec Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Exports (MEIE), CQDM, Brain Canada, Government of Canada, Ontario's Centres of Excellence, Brains for Brain Foundation and a host of other corporations and institutions are all in on the scam. What a conspiracy! For the record, all of biOasis's in vivo studies have been conducted by third parties such as Texas Tech, UBC, NRC, OncoDsign, etc. And biOasis was recently awarded $2.6 million by CQDM for BBB Single Domain Antibody vector research. Go look at who CQDM is.
craig76
9 years ago
The Ischemic Stroke Press Release
Well, my friends, we are holding stock in the first company to show delivery of siRNAs to the brains of living animals. We got it past the BBB and the therapeutic worked for ischemic stroke, an all too common affliction that is in need of far better treatment. (What else are we going to be first to do? Lots, I suspect!)
It's great news, to be sure, and I'll discuss it, but I also want to discuss the press release itself and I do so below. I had also figured that there was a strong possibility that after the news release the market might react poorly and dampen the enthusiasm of shareholders and potential investors. I was right about that, too. So here's my take on it all.
The News
I believe investors need to consider several important pieces of news that were included in the press release, specifically:
• These results are from a study that biOasis had not announced it had even started. The implication can be recognized immediately. Investors need to consider whether other unannounced studies and initiatives might be underway. They need to consider when results might be announced and the effect that multiple successes could have on the market and on pharmaceutical companies. They also might consider the probability that all studies are designed to satisfy the due diligence needs of the pharmaceutical industry.
• The study was done in conjunction with the prestigious National Research Council of Canada. Investors can have confidence in the methods and reporting of the study.
• This is the first study to be made public by biOasis that proves that MTfp, the Transcend peptide carrier, works as hoped. No other known carrier is able to transport the quantities of therapeutics across the BBB that MTfp can transport. It's a point to be remembered that if a carrier can transport more therapeutic across the BBB than is required for efficacy, then physicians will have flexibility in prescribing doses, thus helping to avoid toxic dosing levels. Many other carriers, because they transport such a low percentage of a dose across the BBB, require large, often toxic doses in order to reach efficacious levels in the brain.
• The siRNA therapeutic worked. This means that the therapeutic, once delivered across the BBB, did not have its efficacy negatively influenced by that delivery, or by MTfp.
• biOasis is the first company to show delivery of siRNAs to the brain of living animals. So far, we're THE BEST and we're THE FIRST.
• Gene therapies are being developed by multiple pharmas for a host of central nervous system disorders. biOasis' siRNA news heralds the promise of efficacious delivery of many, if not most of these therapies. It defies logic to think that the pharmaceutical companies in this field would not be interested in these results.
The Press Release
Rather amazingly, there have been some rumblings about the press release itself. I say "rather amazingly" because the press release did state that what was set out to be proven, was proven, and it's no small thing. The PR certainly contained great news, especially since nobody else can do what biOasis reported in that press release.
Some people, both privately and on this forum, have expressed the wish that the press release revealed the name of the therapeutic, the gene that was knocked down and detailed data relating to all of this. I'll comment about this although I must be careful. As most of you know, I have a copywriting contract with biOasis and I did assist in the preparation of this press release.
As a general principle, I believe that all press releases, where possible, should contain some data and descriptions that may be (should be?) above the heads of average investors. It's just good investor relations. The lack of data and scientific detail can be a little off-putting to investors. Some investors may think that the company has something to hide. Others may think that the company is underestimating the capacity of investors to understand the information. They don't take kindly to the perceived insult, especially if they've put considerable study into their investment.
Beyond their purpose of informing investors, press releases do have a marketing function. Plainly speaking, the uninformed are often impressed by the highfalutin language and complexity. They may decide to do some studying to help them understand their investment. That's a good thing. Likewise, the informed are given some information to help them assess the news.
With respect to this press release, I really have no idea why data and greater detail were not included. It could be for protection of intellectual property. In this case, the three groups of animals were treated, respectively, with placebo, siRNA and MTfp-siRNA. In the press release, results with the MTfp-siRNA animals were compared to placebo but not to siRNA-only animals. If the siRNA-only comparison and related data had been included, it's likely that a competitor could determine the gene that was knocked down and the therapeutic that was used to do it. Competitors are very familiar with the stroke model used and they know the characteristics of the therapeutics. They could deduce the details. So that could be a reason for keeping it out of the PR.
And what about the pharmas that are watching biOasis' siRNA efforts? If the therapeutic were named, would any of them think that biOasis has a special relationship with the maker of that therapeutic? Would they suspect the same even if biOasis denied it? Could that prevent a call from being made to biOasis? Is it possible that biOasis wants to avoid contact with the maker of the therapeutic?
And what about the detailed analysis of the study data by the study participants? Could biOasis be sufficiently confident at this point of every detailed statement that it might make about that data? Later corrections or restatements are frowned upon.
It seems to me that what we got were top-line results and that may be all we'll ever get. And I'm ok with that. It's a discussion I did not have in detail with biOasis. In general, I don't want to know more than what I'm putting into the press release. That's the way I want to keep it.
But in the end, I'm no different than many of you. I would have liked to have seen that data.
The Study
There was a question on the forum about why the therapeutics were administered before the strokes were induced in the animals. I'll speculate on this and I suspect I'm not too far off. I may ask RH when I talk to him next.
By definition, strokes are the catastrophic failure of blood flows to areas of the brain. When a person has a stroke, it can be a mild one or fatal, or anything in between. There is no curing of the initial damage. The purpose of treatment is to prevent normal bodily reactions to strokes from causing more damage. It is essential that delivery of the therapeutic happens as soon after the event as possible. The degree of efficacy of the treatment depends upon how quickly it is administered after the stroke.
In a study like this, to be sure that all animals receive their treatments at the same time in relation to the onset of their strokes, I would think that the most efficient and accurate way of doing so would be to treat the animals before the strokes are induced. Unless there was an automated or accurately timed administration of the drug, post stroke, the elapsed time between stroke and its treatment could be so variable among the mice that the results of the study would be meaningless.
Treatment before inducement of the stroke may also ensure uniform distribution of the treatments within each study group. A stroke, by definition, is a disruption of blood flow in the brain. I would think that the strokes manifest themselves in varying ways in each animal. That could possibly cause varying distribution of the therapeutics among the animals. Again, pretreatment of the animals would ensure that drug distribution is as good as it can be within each animal.
The Market
Since the press release, trading in biOasis stock has been a disappointment, no question about it. It was pretty much what I expected and privately predicted. First of all, some investors, when they hold the stock for a long time without any news, look at news as a liquidity event and they sell. They just don't want to wait any longer. We got some of that. No surprise there.
Secondly, we had "Anonymous" seriously pounding the stock all day long. The selling was determined and relentless. "Anonymous" did not at times appear to be interested in getting top dollar for the shares they sold.
I could speculate further on what was going on but I won't participate in that conversation. I suggest we all just leave it alone. It's like the rain. It's going to occasionally rain on parades and golf games, and getting angry over it won't stop the rain. But do remember that the presence of dark clouds may mean rain. It's your choice whether you play when, in the future, dark clouds are threatening.
Our market will overcome "Anonymous" and will do it soon. Sooner or later his interests will align with ours.
Attitude
As usual, no matter how good the news, we had those who just wouldn't allow themselves to go with it. They had to criticize everything. It's like a marriage gone bad - hard words about everything but divorce is not considered to be an option. Some of you should pack your bags and leave the house. If you can't see where this is going, then you shouldn't hold the stock. You've driven yourselves crazy and you're intent on taking the rest of us down with you.
Stop the relentless, senseless, needless damage of your own cause! Your complaints and outrage are becoming tedious in the extreme! (I exclude Sir_Holler from this because he's a trader and will be our buddy when he's selling and our worst enemy when he's buying. I thought that I would spit up when I read the rubbish he posted on the weekend.)
And finally...
This press release signals the end of the first phase of the biOasis story, proof that MTfp works. We know some of the stuff to expect or hope for - Scarpa, Sandhoff, MedImmune. What else might be going on that we don't know about yet? The company sure got this one done on the QT.
I don't think I'm saying anything out of school when I relate a comment RH made to me the other day. It was sort of a throwaway comment, something obvious, but it was meaningful as well. He said, "We've crossed the blood-brain barrier. Next up is the commercial barrier."
When companies and people set goals, neither they nor we should be surprised when the goals are achieved.
This post was written by John D. I have copied it from off the other board.
craig76
9 years ago
Last post of the day for me!
I am posting another post by John D. His knowledge of BiOasis is far greater than myself and most investors.
It is a long post but well worth the read.
Back to the topic, Roche/Genentech owns Herceptin (trastuzumab) and controls its manufacture. The drug is commercially available by prescription and for scientific purposes. biOasis is able to acquire quantities of it for its work. The conjugations (or fusions) of Herceptin with the full size Transcend (MTf) version and with the Transcend peptide version (Transcendpep or MTfp) result in New Chemical Entities that biOasis owns.
As readers here know, we've been talking for a long time about the seemingly obvious importance of bringing Herceptin biosimilars into the equation. A big part of the commercial value that could be available to biOasis is represented by not only the commercial opportunities that BT2111 and its successors could obviously present, but also by the threat that they represent to the interests of the players in the Herceptin and biosimilar space. Whoever can treat HER2+ brain tumours could capture all of that market and render the other players' offerings obsolete, including Roche's Herceptin. So, one would think that the players, or some, or one, would be interested in what biOasis is doing.
Herceptin and (we assume) Herceptin biosimilars can be fused with the two Transcend versions and they would also result in New Chemical Entities. However, it's not possible to commercially acquire Herceptin biosimilars because they are still in development or trials, and are not commercially available. Therefore, companies like biOasis can only acquire them from the companies that make them.
The questions and speculations arising from the delay in an announcement, if there really is a delay, are related to whether biOasis is still in the process of setting up an animal study with Herceptin, with a biosimilar or with both. I think that no matter what, biOasis probably has to test Herceptin again with the fusion proteins, MTf-TZM and MTfp-TZM, in order to compare the results with the BT2111 study at Texas Tech.
When we consider the possibility that biOasis could include a biosimilar in the study, things get interesting.
First, biOasis could still be setting up the studies. After all, using both Herceptin and a biosimilar would require extra planning and resources. But because biOasis would have to deal directly with the maker of a biosimilar, then that brings its owning pharma into the picture. That pharma could very well demand secrecy, especially if there is no licensing agreement between the pharma and biOasis that would protect the pharma's interests. Remember that licensing agreements, the pledging of IP rights, are material and would have to be reported. Secrecy could very well be required.
And then, a secret study could leave the apparent delay open to questions, the primary one being whether the delay is the result of continued planning or whether studies could already be secretly underway. The delay could clearly be explained either way.
My point in all of this is that the delay is unexplained and open to conjecture, including the possibility that biOasis is more advanced in this than we know.
Either way, news from biOasis about either the start of a study, or of the end results of a study, should be relatively close. It has become the habit of investors and contributors on this forum to often take the downside view of things when the upside view is, logically and evidentially, just as legitimate.
I don't know where we're going here, but I would rather anticipate all realistic alternatives than to just consider straight line possibilities. For the forum, I think it's healthier to consider all the possibilities rather than just, day after day, hoping for The Big Deal. There are some other really big things that could happen.
I still maintain that I would rather see some sparkling study results before I see a deal. Dramatic results could generate a significant media and market reaction that could not only make more deals more likely, but could increase the value of those deals. One of the biggest fears I have is that a pharma will make an offer for biOasis before biOasis can establish a serious market cap.
craig76
9 years ago
Hi myrtle222,
The direct link to the analysts report can be found here:
http://www.jrstocks.com/media/20150120_biOasis_Report_FINAL.pdf
I would read report with a grain of salt so to say. I skimmed the report and from what I have read, it seams to me that JRStocks - James Darcel has a slim to none understanding of the actual science and potential of BiOasis. In my opinion I think the value he applied to any deal or partnership BiOasis enters will be for much more than 25 million. I am scratching my head as to where he got that valuation.
I am posting a post in response to JRStocks paper on BiOasis.
This is another post form John D.
A Few Thoughts about The Jrstocks Analyst Report
I'm not "stroking out" about this analyst's report as darnit opines. He has incorrectly predicted my reaction to it. But the report is flawed to a degree, in my opinion. It was written by somebody who is, perhaps, not as fluent in the biOasis story as others are, but that's par for the course with these things. The fact is, biOasis essentially pays for the analyst's research time but does not have final say about the opinions expressed by the analyst.
If biOasis wanted control over the piece (and total responsibility for it) then they'd have the thing prepared internally, perhaps with the help of a contracted copywriter/analyst. As it is, Mr. Darcel of www.jrstocks.com assumes the responsibility for the content, with some proper limits on blue sky controlled by biOasis. Let's look at a few issues, especially license valuation numbers that have been raised.
I dealt with the $25 million question yesterday as it relates to Herceptin. Right now, there is a possibility that Roche with Herceptin or another pharma with a Herceptin biosimilar could partner with biOasis and capture the entire $7 billion per year Herceptin market. Herceptin comes off patent in the USA in 2019 and that market will be wide open for competition. The players in that market will have to struggle for market share at lower dosage prices, probably leaving the dominant player with $2 billion per year in revenue at best. The competition will drive the total revenue downward from $7 billion per year to maybe $4 billion or less and the biosimilars all have to share that market. They wouldn't be developing the biosimilars unless they thought they could make a profit under these diminished commercial market realities.
But if MTfp-TZM (Transcend/Herceptin fusion protein) works in both the brain and body, as has so far been shown, then there is reason to believe that MTfp-TZM (or an MTfp-TZM biosimilar) could become the Standard of Care for HER2+ breast cancer, capturing almost the entire market of $7 billion in annual sales. Even more important is the profit margin for the owner of MTfp-TZM. If a bunch of biosimilars can come on the market and share a reduced Herceptin market (of, say, $4 billion, down from $7 billion), and if they can make a profit on their portions of it, then imagine the profit they can make if they have the entire market to themselves! That potential market would pop back up to $7 billion per year, or more when you add in sufferers of HER2+ brain tumours that are currently untreated.
As I remarked yesterday, $7 billion per year is almost $20 million per day. It actually works out to $800,000 per hour. Mr. Darcel writes the following:
"...biOasis could receive as much as CAD$25 million for each major long-term license agreement with the fees staged by successful steps during the processes of regulatory filing/reporting and R&D milestones to be determined. These fees would be eventually augmented by a royalty stream from product sales."
That means, intentionally or not, that Mr. Darcel is saying that an MTfp-TZM license could be purchased from biOasis for $25 million or the equivalent of 31.25 hours of future sales (plus future royalties). I am somewhat agog at the statement! I don't think that makes sense. I can see it for therapy with a few hundred million in potential revenue, but take a look at MedImmune. If MedImmune's work with biOasis included pain therapy, a market estimated at a potential $30 billion in annual sales, is Mr. Darcel saying that MedImmune could get the key to those sales from biOasis for a mere $25 million? There is no sense of proportion in Mr. Darcel's "analysis." (It should be noted that we still have no idea which of MedImmune's preclinical programs were tested with The Transcend Platform, or whether a pain therapeutic can be made to work, even if Transcend successfully transported the drug into the brain.)
Further, he says that, "biOasis has no revenues currently, and we do not anticipate any revenues for some years to come." Has he totally ignored the three biOasis business models? biOasis has the vector, the key that allows the pharmaceutical companies to proceed with their neurotherapeutics. If the Transcend Platform works as hoped, it is preposterous in the extreme to think that biOasis does not have the leverage to charge significant fees for licenses that would allow the pharmaceutical companies to move forward with research, clinical trials and commercialization of their many neurotherapeutic candidates. They can't move ahead without biOasis or a similar competitor (which so far as we can tell, doesn't really exist yet). There will be no waiting for years for revenue here, unless there is something basically wrong with the Transcend Platform. biOasis is transporting the drugs and the company's future revenue should not entirely depend on the success or failure of somebody else's therapeutics. The biOasis partner would otherwise not be able to advance its therapeutic without biOasis and that has value to biOasis. As I've said many times, eventually the pharmas will not be testing Transcend. Instead, they'll be using Transcend to test their own therapeutics.
Mr. Darcel is wrong about something else, but it's not his fault, not really. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that when biOasis decided on the "MTfp-AAA" nomenclature, that the names were preceded by "f" as in, "fMTfp-AAA" with the "f" meaning fusion protein. This was the nomenclature used in the September 9, 2014 "Sandhoff" press release. But it was quickly determined that because all significant work in the future would be with fusion proteins, then there was no need for the fusion designation. biOasis immediately dropped the "fMTfp" and "fMTf" names and shortened them to "MTfp" and "MTf" (for, respectively, "Melanotransferrin peptide" and "Melanotransferring") and the new names were used on the September 18, 2014 "Scarpa" press release. The new nomenclature remains in use on official documentation. But Mr. Darcel uses the "fMTfp-HEXB" name in his report. It's a fair and honest mistake because that's the name on the press release of September 9th, and I don't fault Mr. Darcel for it.
The point is that if a scrupulous reading and editing of Mr. Darcel's report had been performed by biOasis then the "fMTfp" designation would likely have been caught. As a copywriter, my clients, including biOasis, are responsible for the content and publishing of the material that I have a hand in creating. Not so with an analyst's report like this, although the company needs to make sure that there are no outlandish share price or revenue projections that could be challenged by the exchange. Otherwise, the opinions of the report remain those of the analyst, without interference from the company.
Mr. Darcel's report reached the screens of a mostly new audience for biOasis and that is the purpose of supporting it in the first place. I think readers here should just back off a bit on this. There is no pumping of the stock in the report, just an analyst's "best effort" analysis and he gets it mostly right (in our opinions), but with very conservative estimates of future share price and revenue, as is right and proper for him to do given the company's participation in its creation, however minimal the participation was.
In the end, I'm glad that it went out. The story needs to be introduced to new investors. My understanding is that it was pure coincidence that the James West and jrstocks reports came out on the same day. Except for the audience here on Stockhouse, the two reports went mostly to different subscribers, and that is a good thing.
And about the higher share price and revenue projections that we find here on Stockhouse, they also are mostly well-considered opinions, but they are still just opinions, all from people like myself who have a vested interest in achieving those numbers. Further, we can and do pick apart the fundamentals for intrinsic value, but we are also players in a stock market that we understand to greater and lessor degrees. When we see plays like Synageva and its market cap of around $4 billion, with its limited pipeline, then surely we can legitimately project that the investing public could also drive the biOasis share price to very high levels, given that biOasis may have the key that is necessary to open up potential annual commercial markets of $100 billion to $200 billion in neurotherapeutic sales.
So lets just keep it all in perspective and appreciate that the biOasis story reached lots of new investors this week. Far from "stroking out" about it, I'm pleased.
craig76
10 years ago
Here is another post from JD.
Thank you for taking your time to post that. Very informative.
Very positive in my opinion.
Introduction
For a long time scientists have believed that p97 (melanotransferrin) offered strong potential as a transporter of drugs across the BBB into the Central Nervous System (CNS). There has been good evidence to support this, lots of it found in the papers on the biOasis website.
But, as investors now understand, the p97 molecule is not really commercially viable because it's too large and too expensive to manufacture. MedImmune apparently put a lot of effort into p97, without getting a commercial solution, it seems. Their agreements with biOasis would seem to illustrate their belief in p97, in the value of the small peptide versions of p97 and in the IP protection that biOasis has to protect the Transcend platform.
Many other companies are working on means of crossing the BBB, from Shire's intrathecal pump, to methods of physically opening BBB gaps, to nanotechnologies, to Roche's (Transferrin-based) Brain Shuttle. None show the commercial viability, practicality, universal capabilities and, yet, selective transport qualities that Transcendpep shows.
So for investment purposes we're going to make an informed assumption, right here, that Transcendpep from BiOasis Technologies Inc (V.BTI) could be a major player, if not the only major player in the transport of all types of drugs and therapies across the BBB, if it continues to show success and safety.
The BBB transport vector potential market can easily be estimated at $100 billion or more per year. Calculations would include oncology at $20 billion or more, pain management (anti-TNF or related therapies) at $30 billion or more and 100 to 200 drugs and programs that could each produce a billion or two per year. The need for a effective BBB vector is immense. If one company had all of those blockbusters, that company could be the biggest pharmaceutical company, by far. (J&J is the largest with revenue in 2013 of $71 billion.)
But it's essential that investors understand the significance of Transcendpep. Transcendpep is a family of small peptides that preserve p97's transport capabilities but do so in a commercially viable (relatively inexpensive) manner and they do it without significantly increasing the size of the original unconjugated drug. It is a platform technology meaning that it is a technology upon which an almost infinite number of drugs and therapies can be developed, patented and commercialized.
Transcendpep is the small "hook" that when grafted onto drugs (conjugated with them), will allow the Blood Brain Barrier to transport those therapies across the cell membranes in a process called "receptor-mediated transcytosis."
Some of the Transcendpep conjugates should be prime candidates for fast track FDA approval by virtue of the immediate need for them and because they will be conjugates with already-proven drugs (such as Herceptin). This means that pharmas should have shorter and cheaper paths to commercialization and less pipeline risk, making Transcendpep and biOasis even more valuable. Some of us have written about the compassionate and fast track FDA approval of drugs. We consider some of these to be "low-hanging fruit" in the Transcendpep catalogue. BT211X the LSD programs are two obvious examples of programs that could receive such fast FDA approval.
Another avenue for business development and commercial agreements for biOasis is in research. Recently biOasis announced that Transcendpep is capable delivering siRNA (small, interfering ribonucleic acid) across the blood-brain barrier and into brain cells. It seems that siRNA will not be commercialized for a long while yet, if ever, but a lot of research could benefit from the availability of an effective BBB vector. BiOasis could charge for the research services they can offer and perhaps include future licensing options in any signed agreements. Transcendpep could be very important for the siRNA players. There should be many other research opportunities for biOasis in very early stage R&D programs with multiple pharmas.
People use the term "Holy Grail" to describe breakthroughs. Transcendpep could be one of those. Simply put, the markets are large and unmet. Most large pharmas and several small biotechs are either working on CNS drugs or are interested in doing so. Further, there is an existing long list of drugs, either on the market, orphaned or in development, that require a BBB vector for them to be useful and commercially viable. The question isn't whether opportunity exists, it's what opportunities to choose first if Transcendpep remains successful.
Why Now?
So why should a deal happen now? Opportunity and threat. It's that simple. It's partly because the Transcendpep opportunity is available NOW for conjugate development and licensing. Companies must act when opportunities present themselves. If they don't act, somebody else will beat them to it, either eliminating an opportunity or destroying the viability of an existing program by making it obsolete or ineffective in comparison to a competing Transcendpep program.
But it's also because of MedImmune, the elephant in the room. MedImmune has already had sufficient success with Transcendpep (and confidence in its patents) to advance to a second phase of development with Transcendpep conjugates of several preclinical drugs. Not only does MedImmune have a head start but this second phase agreement is a signal to other pharmas that they can have enough confidence in Transcendpep to at least have a serious look at it. (It also allows biOasis to require higher up front payments - no more tire-kicking cost-basis collaborations.)
But MedImmune is well ahead of other pharmas in this regard. It's believed that each MedImmune drug program has its own completion timeline with some programs expected to have early results (3 to 6 months), others to be a little later. BiOasis maintains that they will only enter agreements that restrict pharmas' ability to delay things. This mean that reporting and making licensing decisions will likely be driven by time limitations defined in the agreements.
We're pretty sure that each drug has its own licensing terms, as well. It would seem obvious that each MedImmune drug under evaluation must be separately defined and valued in these ways because one or more programs could fail. Therefore, we would expect that individual timelines and values would be pre-defined. This could mean that MedImmune might report results, on single or multiple drugs, at any time. We could see licensing agreements implemented at any time in H2, 2014, and some in early 2015.
NOTE: Just because Transcendpep can get a drug across the BBB doesn't mean the drug will work after it gets there. Many drugs to be tested with Transcendpep are unproven, preclinical drugs. MedImmune's Transcendpep drugs are described as preclinical so therapeutic success may not be guaranteed. Also, MedImmune may have more than one preclinical version of a therapy in this evaluation and part of this new agreement may be to find which of them is worth pursuing. We shouldn't expect all MedImmune Transcendpep conjugates to move forward.
But here's the issue for other pharmas. MedImmune, if it sees that multiple conjugates are successful, could make a preemptive bid for biOasis instead of licensing multiple conjugates. They could possibly buy the company for a price not much different than the sum of the prices for the individual licenses. That buyout bid or the framework for pricing it, could already be included in the MedImmune agreement with biOasis. We just don't know that. Also, any other pharma on the outside watching biOasis could make a preemptive or competing bid to prevent MedImmune from acquiring biOasis.
This has got to be scary for many pharmas. There is no guarantee that the other pharmas could gain access to Transcendpep if biOasis is acquired by MedImmune, or by some other pharma. Any buyer of biOasis could at the very least put a moratorium on new Transcendpep licensing deals until it has decided what kind of in-house pipeline it wants to develop with Transcendpep.
Also, an acquiring pharma like AZ could launch an acquisition spree if it owned Transcendpep. Other pharmas and biotechs with no avenue open to them to get their CNS pipeline drugs across the BBB could very well be compelled to sell these programs to AZ or to whoever else might buy biOasis.
Some of these companies, especially biotechs with small pipelines and little or no revenue, must view the MedImmune/AZ/biOasis relationship as an existential threat, others seeing it at least a threat to their CNS pipelines. Therefore, they must either take a chance that they can deal in the future with biOasis or a new owner of Transcendpep, or they must make deals now, before MedImmune or some other pharma can buy Transcendpep and exercise full control over it.
Further, biOasis must not allow itself be in the position of negotiating a buyout with MedImmune or anybody else if the share price remains low and if no other pharmas are publicly showing interest. BiOasis must get investors to start pricing this stock in a manner that expresses the potential of Transcendpep, a price that recognizes not only the potential of at least some tens of billions in future sales per year, but also the hundreds of millions of revenue that biOasis could almost immediately start generating from licensing agreements.
Whatever licensing agreements that might materialize could EACH immediately bring in $5 million to as much as $30 million in up front fees and a total of hundreds of millions in milestone payments in the first 2 or 3 years of existence. LSD, alone, could generate $30 million or more in the first six months of an agreement and $300 million or so in milestone payments over the next 2 to 3 years. And that's just for one of the smallest programs that biOasis has available.
Obviously, with a current share price of only $1.20, biOasis needs to generate awareness of Transcendpep and an appreciation of its value. There can be no greater expression of confidence in Transcendpep, its commercial value and its patent protections than having pharmas, large and small, make deals with biOasis for the development of their CNS pipelines. BiOasis needs deals almost as badly as the pharmas need them. I say "almost" because biOasis can develop its own CNS pipeline (and should already be more proactive in that pursuit).
The bottom line, biOasis is both a huge opportunity and a huge threat to pharmas. Whether the pharmas have their own drugs to get across the BBB or they want to license something like BT211X, they must get that deal done now or risk not getting a deal at all.
There are lots of rumours coming from multiple directions that biOasis is very active in deal-making with players that are completely new and unknown to investors. If the rumours turn out to be true, it really shouldn't be any sort of surprise given how important a capable BBB vector will be and how much of a threat current collaborations pose to the many players in the CNS space.
I anticipate one or two deals between pharmas and biOasis before MedImmune can get any of their evaluation programs completed, meaning deals could happen literally any day now.
$20 to $50 - Why and When?
It is my belief, and has been for a long time, that when the biOasis story gets fleshed out with enough scientific information and commercial news, and when that information and news has penetrated the biotech, financial and popular media, that investors will bid up this stock in a very aggressive manner. I think it's highly probable that in 2014 investors will bid BTI up to $20, at least, with potential for $50 and higher.
BiOasis has identified something like 200 therapeutic candidates (drugs, biologics, therapies, small molecule drugs, gene therapies, enzymes, etc.) that Transcendpep should be able to transport across the BBB. Let's have a look at just one, Lysosomal Storage Diseases (LSD)
A licensing deal for LSD will probably include a few millions up front, $20 million or $30 million after initial animal studies are completed (3 to 6 months after deal signing) and several milestone payments at various stages over 2 years or so. The total license when fully acquired should result in somewhere around $300 million being paid to biOasis.
Most people agree that such a deal, in its own right, should be immediately worth a biOasis share price of $5.00 or more. But when investors realize that there is potential for dozens of deals for 100 to 200 drugs, that MedImmune, if their Transcendpep evaluations are successful, should be only weeks away from multiple deals, probably of similar or greater value than an LSD deal, then those investors are going to understand that the Transcendpep platform could eventually support annual drugs sales of tens of billions of dollars.
When analysts and investors get the picture straight in their heads, this stock cannot sit at $5 or $10. There's no middle ground. Transcendpep is either worth nothing or a billion to two billion dollars, right now.
Months ago I mentioned Synageva on this forum. They're in the LSD business, or at least they have LSD programs. They have one non-CNS drug in clinical trials and one (SPS-103) that is for the LSD, MPS III. That means that Synageva is in business with a small subset of the LSD business that biOasis is capable of entering.
Synageva (Q.GEVA), with about 30 million shares outstanding, has a low for the month of June of $76.63, on June 6. That low represented a market cap of about $2.3 billion. That's for a company in the LSD business with less potential in the LSD business than biOasis has. (Synageva has almost $600 million in the bank. Subtract it if you want. It's still a big market cap.)
Today Synageva closed at $95.15. Since June 6, GEVA's market cap has increased by over $550 million to almost $3 billion. This month Synageva's market cap has INCREASED by an amount that is TEN TIMES greater than biOasis's market cap!
And biOasis not only has the key to LSD but they have pipeline potential for 50 to 100 times the value of the combined LSD markets!!
Nobody can tell me that the biOasis market cap isn't going to shoot upwards as soon as a couple of deals get done, BT2111, gene therapy or LSD, MedImmune, it makes no difference, and as soon as an understanding of biOasis's potential isn't known!!
There is no argument that can be made against valuations of at least $20, probably $50, and possibly higher. And because pharmas must act now, those valuations will be seen this year.
I could be more dramatic about this. I could present numbers (NPV calculations, etc), and I have done so in the past. But what's the point! I'm not trying to convince anybody, not really. I just want to be on the record as predicting this.
And that's what I'm doing. This stock will see $20 to $50 this year unless biOasis fails to pull some triggers. That is the biggest fear I have, that because biOasis in the past has shown such debilitating hesitation to act, that they'll hesitate until some pharma offers them something silly like $150 million for everything, and biOasis will have little ammunition to avoid such a terrible deal, other than to do what they seem to have always done, wait for pharmas to come knocking on the door with other offers in hand.
The rumour right now is that there are a couple of unknown companies who want to make deals, one of them for LSD licenses. (And it's not Shire. Whoever it is is new to us, apparently.)
So get it done, biOasis, before MedImmune has to think about buying the company. I'm all finished celebrating a 7¢ gain like we saw today when another player, with less, has had a $550 million INCREASE in market cap in two weeks, with far fewer good reasons for it!
Thanks again John.
craig76
10 years ago
I have pasted another great post from JD off the other board. I had a great conversation with him the other day and got a whole new perspective on how big BTI could really be. I was originally concerned about the possibility of Medimmune not being able to bind their drugs to the BT2111 molecule effectively. This is not an issue!
Here is JDs excellent post:
BiOasis has not directly announced BT211X, so I'm making some guesses and suppositions here that may be a little off in detail, but I doubt they're off on substance by very much. I can offer little guarantee of strict accuracy here except to say that for our purposes it should be accurate enough. We'll look at some relative molecule sizes as measured in Daltons (Da) or kiloDaltons (kDa). (1000 Da = 1 kDa). These are atomic mass units that allow us to compare sizes of molecules.
The atomic mass of Trastuzumab (Herceptin) is 145,531.5 Da or about 146 kDa.
The atomic mass of p97 (melanotransferrin) is about about 80,000 Da or 80 kDa.
To make a BT2111 molecule, a linker of, to me, unknown small molecular weight is used. The Trastuzumab (146 kDa) and the p97 (80 kDa) are conjugated (joined) together with the linker for a combined weight of about 226 kDa. There is a limited description of the linking process in the p97/PTAX/ADR paper found here on the biOasis web site. It's nasty reading!
Just below is a representation of the probable resulting size of the current BT2111 conjugate. The p97 is on top, then the linker, then the Trastuzumab. Each asterisk ( * ) equals 1000 Da or 1 kDa. (226,000 Da, total.) Bear in mind that small molecule drugs are less than 900 Da and only drugs of 300 or 400 Da and smaller can cross the BBB, depending on their solubility in water and lipids.
Aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, C9-H8-O4, is only about 180 Da compared to Trastuzumab at 145,531 Da. That means that more than 5 aspirin molecules can fit in each asterisk in this drawing. (Also note that if more than one p97 molecule can be conjugated with a single Trastuzumab molecule, it's beyond my knowledge, but it would be big enough to see from the Space Station!)
So, here's the current BT2111.
****************
****************
**************** <---------------- p97
****************
****************
** <--------------------------------- Linker
*****************************
*****************************
***************************** <-- Trastuzumab
*****************************
******************************
That's a big molecule!
An added complication of BT2111 and building it using linkers is that there apparently is not direct control of the resulting molecular structure. In fact, p97 can link to Trastuzumab on more than one Trastuzumab location making for multiple versions of the BT2111 conjugate. And this is important - when seeking FDA approval, a specific, known and reproducible molecule must be used in clinical trials and the resulting therapies. So, another linking mechanism is needed to ensure a single conjugate structure exists and is tested. Fusion conjugates are required.
Fusion conjugation is a method of linking one molecule to another directly and always using the same binding location(s) on both molecules. Transcendpep should allow a much simpler way of creating fusion conjugates. The manufacturing process is reduced from several weeks per batch to several days. Further, because the peptide is just a few amino acids strung together, it's structure is simple and quality control is easier.
What's really important is that cost for Transcendpep plummets by over 90% compared to Transcend. The resulting conjugate is much smaller and cheaper than the original BT2111 and is a fusion conjugate, just what is needed to apply for Investigational New Drug (IND) status.
And it turns out that Transcendpep, when conjugated with Trastuzumab, results in a conjugate that is only about 1% bigger than Trastuzumab alone. (BiOasis won't reveal the size of Transcendpep but it appears to be 1% or less of the size of Trastuzumab so that means it's less than 1.5 kDa or 1500 Da in size.)
So instead of that BT2111 monster above we have a much simpler BT211X conjugate of about 147 kDa, instead of 226 kDa, that should compare like this:
* <----------------------------------- Transcendpep
*****************************
*****************************
***************************** <-- Trastuzumab
*****************************
******************************
It's that little "*" up top that hooks onto a receptor on the BBB and pulls Herceptin across the BBB. Further, Transcendpep can apparently be fused to multiple locations on a Trastuzumab molecule allowing a cactus-like BT211X molecule. This would greatly increase the likelihood of BT211X finding a receptor on the BBB, meaning that BT211X's half-life, bioavailability and ability to find receptors in nooks and crannies would be enhanced.
So, in the end, its the combination of very small size, very low cost and increased efficacy that has apparently sent BT2111 into history and should allow something much more practical and important to come forward, the new peptide version, BT211X, whatever it's might be called.
Now, you must understand that I'm making assumptions and guesses and, I hope, good logic to arrive at this description. For now, I'm going to work with these assumptions. I know that things are a lot more complicated than this, and some of the meanings and attributes may shift a little, but I think that for our purposes we can use this type of thinking.
I think we'll know soon enough. And think about that little Transcendpep. It'll do gene therapy and it should be small enough to do small molecules as well. Right now, only 2% of small molecule drugs (drugs less than 900 Da) can cross the BBB!!
Damn, this small thing is going to be big!!
jdstox
craig76
10 years ago
biOasis Technologies Inc.
Suite 600-1385 West 8Th Ave., Vancouver BC V6H 3V9
Tel: (778) 383-3280
For immediate release TSX.V: BTI
Date: April 24th, 2014
biOasis Discovers the Keys to Transcend to Advance its Program for the Delivery of Therapeutics Across the Blood-Brain Barrier
This Represents A Major Finding For the Company, Its Partners, Potential Partners and Shareholders
APRIL 24th, 2014 – BIOASIS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (OTCQX:BIOAF; TSXV:BTI), a pioneering biopharmaceutical company focused on overcoming the limitations of therapeutic drug delivery across the blood-brain barrier, has identified a new family of peptides that conserve the brain shuttling properties of Transcend. Transcend is biOasis’ proprietary vector which has the function of shuttling molecules across the blood-brain barrier. In side-by-side comparisons, these new peptide vectors are more efficient than the native, full- size Transcend molecule at delivering cargo to the brain.
This new family of peptides is able to shuttle a variety of therapeutic and biologics into the brain and their transport is not limited by the size of the transported therapeutic or its composition. This family, the second generation of Transcend, offers multiple advantages compared to Transcend. For example, the costs of production are extremely low as the peptides can be easily synthesized and a wide variety of peptide-cargo conjugates with different applications to a range of diseases can be produced simply and predictably. The peptide vectors are particularly well-suited to coupling to small molecule chemotherapeutics and other drugs. Thus development of new drugs using these new shuttle vectors can be accomplished more quickly and at much lower costs. This new family of novel chemical entities will provide a strong patent position for the company and its current and future partners.
Professor Wilfred Jefferies, biOasis’ founding scientist states, “After several years of innovation based on Transcend, our team has identified a new class of small carriers that can shuttle drugs across the blood-brain barrier allowing them to enter and distribute in the brain. In preclinical animal models the peptide vector-conjugates have shown remarkable efficacy. The discovery and translation of these newcarrier entities into novel therapeutics provides a glimpse into the future treatment of Neurological Disorders.”
About Transcend
Transcend offers the creation of a new class of drugs that can cross the blood-brain barrier to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of brain metastatic cancer and other brain disorders, such as neurodegeneration and metabolic disease. The blood-brain barrier represents the single greatest challenge in treating diseases and other disorders within the brain. Diseases such as cancer are readily treated in many areas of the body, but drugs designed to treat cancer simply cannot penetrate the blood- brain barrier. The ability to more effectively permeate the blood-brain opens the door for the creation of new drugs designed to treat a wide variety of neurological diseases and disorders. Additionally, Transcend offers the potential to take existing clinically approved drugs that are near their end of patent life and extend them.
About biOasis
biOasis Technologies Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. Based on Transcend, biOasis proprietary brain delivery platform, the company is focused on creating new drugs that can cross the blood-brain barrier to address unmet medical needs in the treatment of brain diseases such as neurodegeneration, metastatic cancer and metabolic diseases. biOasis trades on the OTCQX under the symbol BIOAF and on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol “BTI”. For more information about the company please visit www.bioasis.ca.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 or forward-looking information under applicable Canadian securities legislation that may not be based on historical fact, including without limitation statements containing the words “believe”, “may”, “plan”, “will”, “estimate”, “continue”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “expect” and similar expressions. Such forward-looking statements or information involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results, events or developments, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, events or developments express or implied by such forward-looking statements or information. Such factors include, among others, our stage of development, lack of any product revenues, additional capital requirements, risk associated with the completion of clinical trials and obtaining regulatory approval to market our products, the ability to protect our intellectual property, dependence on collaborative partners and the prospects for negotiating additional corporate collaborations or licensing arrangements and their timing. Specifically, certain risks and uncertainties that could cause such actual events or results expressed or implied by such forward- looking statements and information to differ materially from any future events or results expressed or implied by such statements and information include, but are not limited to, the risks and uncertainties that: products that we develop may not succeed in preclinical or clinical trials, or future products in our targeted corporate objectives; our future operating results are uncertain and likely to fluctuate; we may not be able to raise additional capital; we may not be successful in establishing additional corporate collaborations or licensing arrangements; we may not be able to establish marketing and the costs of launching our products may be greater than anticipated; we have no experience in commercial manufacturing; we may face unknown risks related to intellectual property matters; we face increased competition from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies; and other factors as described in detail in our filings with the Canadian securities regulatory authorities at www.sedar.com. Given these risks and uncertainties, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on such forward-looking statements and information, which are qualified in their entirety by this cautionary statement. All forward-looking statements and information made herein are based on our current expectations and we undertake no obligation to revise or update such forward- looking statements and information to reflect subsequent events or circumstances, except as required by law.
On Behalf of the Board of Directors Rob Hutchison Chairman & CEO
Company Contact:
Rob Hutchison, Chairman & CEO
biOasis Technologies Inc.
Tel 778-383-3280
rob@bioasis.ca
Investor Relations Contact:
Ron Both, Senior Managing Director
Liolios Group, Inc.
Tel 949-574-3860
BTI@liolios.com
Trade like a pro: Leverage real-time discussions and market-moving ideas to outperform.
whytestocks
5 years ago
Hot Features
Premium
