The Life Sciences Report: John, biotech stocks have been in a steady retreat since the peak on July 20. Now, compounding that effect, we have experienced global stock market volatility that originated in China. Given that biotech has been in a bull run for close to four years, I wonder if you think it will suffer more than the rest of the market? Or could biotech actually perform better after the shakeout?
John McCamant: We expect biotech to outperform. As we discussed in our last issue of the Medical Technology Stock Letter (MTSL), we are used to seeing corrections. We particularly referenced the seasonality of the sector, and I think that seasonality combined with the market selloff. In the bigger picture, we're comfortable with corrections in biotech, as well as in the broad markets. These markets don't go straight up, and we need opportunities to get into them.
We're also coming into the fall season, where we will see more biotech news flow. It started with the European Society of Cardiology, which began its conference in London on Aug. 29. This "busy season" will continue into early December, with the American Society of Hematology (ASH) conference. Seasonality is very important, and we are turning the corner now.
TLSR: Jay, did you want to comment?
Jay Silverman: Yes, I do. One of the things that biotech offers is above-average compounded rates of growth year after year. We are hard-pressed to find another sector that delivers that kind of growth in this global slow-growth environment, especially in Asia. We've been questioning U.S. growth, but we got some upbeat data on Aug. 27 when the U.S. Department of Labor said GDP growth in Q2/15 was 3.7%. On an absolute basis, we have an above-average growth rate that's sustainable, and on a relative basis, biotech stocks look even better.
Biotech stocks deserve premium multiples. They may have gotten overextended because this bull market has lasted a very long time. Again, this kind of correction was not unexpected. The severity was unexpected, but the rebound has already been impressive. As you know, at the MTSL we look at stocks over the long term, and our initial recommendations and target prices use a 12- to 18-month time frame. The real gains, we suggest, come from being in stocks two to four years. The key is not to get spooked out when these corrections occur, because over time stocks usually correct back, as long as fundamentals remain intact. Through all of this volatility, we've only seen good news from our companies, so we think the fundamental stories are intact.
TLSR: Currently, a plethora of new technologies are going into the clinic—gene therapies, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells, and other advanced technologies. Even a decade ago, who would have thought we would be talking about curing genetic diseases? Do you think these new technologies will keep this extended run alive?
JM: We agree with that premise. The majority of the companies we'll discuss today are platform-based, or have the opportunity to be. Novavax Inc. (NVAX:NASDAQ) is one of those, and it is in a new market that people hadn't realized was a huge opportunity because there was no way to address it before now.
Another thing that's key to the long biotech run: the regulatory environment, which is as favorable as it has ever been. With underlying fundamentals this strong, and access to capital, which is still available, we believe we have all we need to be confident in biotechs going forward.
Of course, biotechs need a good overall market. With the recent shakeout, this sets us up for not just a biotech rally in the fall, but also for a nice, across-the-board rally.
TLSR: Jay, you can't count on liquidity with micro-cap biotech stocks, but in a volatile market to the downside, you might not be able to count on marketability of these shares. Plus, tiny companies may have limited opportunities to raise capital. If we continue to see volatility, should investors stay away from micro-cap biotech stocks?
JS: I look at it on a company-by-company basis. Micro caps are usually stocks valued at under $100 million ($100M). We have one stock under that valuation today— OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals Inc. (OGXI:NASDAQ), which we consider a fallen angel. Our newsletter focuses on finding small-cap names before anyone else understands the fundamentals that will change public perception and ultimately grow these companies to much larger valuations. To say that people should be out of micro caps in a particular market doesn't really apply to us, because we look at the long term. The events that move these stocks could be a later-stage clinical trial or something else.
"We expect biotech to outperform." — John McCamant
The issue here is that buyers of very small names are, for the most part, individuals. Funds, whether they are mutual funds or hedge funds, can only buy a maximum of 10% of a company. If it's a multibillion-dollar fund, a $10M position in a $100M stock is not going to move the needle. Even if the stock tripled, it wouldn't move the needle on a fund of that size.
OncoGenex is a perfect example. It had $74M in cash as of the end of Q2/15. Its market cap today is about $73M, and in this crazy selloff, for a moment its market cap actually went under $50M. To me, that's where the risk/reward gets really sexy, but, again, you have to be quite nimble. We know OncoGenex will make three or four major clinical announcements in the next three to six months, and that's a very short time frame in biotech. Those are Phase 3 trials and a large Phase 2 trial, so it's very specific. The key is finding these diamonds in the rough.
TLSR: Will biotech investors get focused back on fundamentals through the data that emerge in this busy season?
JM: Certainly. Particularly with the market rebounding, there will be a lot of news flow. Data are basically the lifeblood of the biotech industry. You need to deliver the data. That is where the deals and the partnerships come from, which we expect to see more of this year. Big pharma is also a big part of the data stream coming up, but this is where biotech can add the value to portfolios.
TLSR: Let's talk about some stocks. Do you have a favorite?
JM: One of our favorite stocks is The Medicines Company (MDCO:NASDAQ). On Aug. 30, the company delivered important data on its PCSK9 synthesis inhibitor, ALN-PCSsc. In a Phase 1, randomized, single-blind trial with 69 patients, it demonstrated that it can lower LDL-C—"bad cholesterol"—as much as 83%, and it achieved a 64% mean maximum reduction. Most important, a single injection lasted for 140 days, meaning that the drug can be given quite safely every three months (potentially every six months), compared with every two weeks for the first-generation antibodies from Amgen Inc. (AMGN:NASDAQ) and Regeneron/ Sanofi SA (SNY:NYSE). That gave the stock a good bump on Aug. 31.
TLSR: Who wants to take the next name?
JM: I'll talk about Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. (CBMG:NASDAQ). While we're interested in the company's stem cell play with ReJoin in osteoarthritis of the knee, we believe that Cellular Biomedicine is basically a pure play on cancer in China, with potential for its technology to be expanded to other parts of the world.
"The key is not to get spooked out when corrections occur. Biotech stocks usually correct back, as long as fundamentals remain intact." — Jay Silverman
Basically, in less than a calendar year, the company has created an immune oncology portfolio that has already begun to generate data on par with anything else being developed, at least in the first generation. It has CAR T-cell products targeting CD19 in acute B lymphocytic leukemia, as well as an anti-CD20 program in progressive malignant lymphoma. It has also in-licensed a cancer vaccine, CD40LGVAX, and this is being developed at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Florida.
Basically, Cellular Biomedicine is putting together a huge portfolio of assets in cancer—and specifically in immuno-oncology—that it will be able to sell. We also believe it will be a gatekeeper for China, particularly for the biotech companies that want to participate in immuno-oncology. The company has a very strong relationship with the Chinese PLA General Hospital, the leading teaching institution.
TLSR: I'm noting that CBMG has four CAR T-cell Phase 1 clinical programs currently in progress, in acute B lymphocytic leukemia, progressive malignant lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma and EGFR-positive lung cancer. These are FDA trials, but they are being performed in China. What is the significance of that? Are we talking about getting products approved rapidly in China and then building on those data for FDA submission later on?
JM: That is the core question. The Chinese regulatory system is very similar to that of the FDA. Initially, we'd see approval in the Chinese markets. There's not a lot of competition in some of those areas, so these programs could easily be out-licensed or developed in other parts of the world. We also expect Cellular Biomedicine to leverage its Chinese academic partnership, leading to the formation of additional global academic partnerships.
TLSR: You mentioned the stem cell program. Cellular Biomedicine's ReJoin is in a Phase 2a study right now for osteoarthritis of the knee. Would this be considered the lead program for the company?
JM: It's not, at least in our growth thesis. The ReJoin program does demonstrate that Cellular Biomedicine has an understanding of stem cell technology, which it will need to process CAR T-cells and manage them for the company's cancer programs. But we are primarily interested in the cancer opportunity.
Longer term, stem cells would have an opportunity in a market like China, but you're basically going to need an off-the-shelf approach, which the autologous ReJoin program does not offer. At this point we believe oncology is much more critical to this investment. Given the opportunity in China, which has a huge and growing middle class and an aging baby-boom population—the exact same age demographic that we have in the U.S.—we think cancer will be the opportunity, and the company may even have a technology advantage. Remember, China has 1.3 billion (1.3B) people.
TLSR: John, Cellular Biomedicine is down about 50% over the past 12 weeks. What is that about?
JM: We don't see a long-term issue. Near term, as Jay mentioned earlier, micro-cap stocks like Cellular Biomedicine are generally owned by individuals, so there are going to be gyrations. That said, some major misinformation came out a couple of months ago about U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and a previous company that was the shell Cellular Biomedicine merged into.
"The regulatory environment is as favorable as it has ever been." — John McCamant
The key for this company is data, and it has delivered some of these data. In these early-stage CAR T-cell cancer trials, you are looking at 10 or 20 patients, and also at very sick patients. We have already seen signs of efficacy with the technology, and we have more data coming this fall. This technology is for real. As we come out of the summer doldrums, this company could easily make up that loss before the year is out.
TLSR: Jay, did you have a comment on Cellular Biomedicine?
JS: I just want to throw in that even with this recent pullback, Cellular Biomedicine is up almost 80% year-to-date, which is better than most. Also, it is a very thinly traded stock, so it doesn't take much to move it in either direction. The volatility is higher than in the average biotech. Lastly, being a Chinese company, it is probably getting some downside pressure from the decline in the Chinese market, which is where all this turmoil began. But fundamentally, the trend lines are in an excellent direction.
TLSR: Jay, you called OncoGenex, another cancer company, a fallen angel. Would you like to add to your comments?
JS: I like to call OncoGenex a fallen angel because its first Phase 3 study, SYNERGY, of its lead compound custirsen (OGX-011), failed in April 2014 in a frontline metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting. When your lead program fails, you go into the major penalty box, and many times, you don't recover.
People were thinking that even if custirsen worked, it wasn't going to be used because other prostate cancer drugs were being approved, such as Medivation Inc.'s (MDVN:NASDAQ) Xtandi (enzalutamide) and Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ:NYSE) Zytiga (abiraterone acetate). This stock went into the have-nots basket and basically crawled along the bottom. People had given up on the company, but we kept an eye on it because we wanted to see what management might do to resurrect the company.
"With the market rebounding, there will be a lot of news flow." — John McCamant
Since May of this year, OncoGenex has had four regulatory and clinical events that got us very excited about the story. We recommended the stock just about a month ago. Those four events were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) meeting at the beginning of June, including both custirsen, which is still the lead compound, and apatorsen (OGX-427), the company's second compound. Both are designed to do one thing in particular, and that is to allow a tumor to avoid resistance to chemotherapy.
TLSR: These drugs are both antisense compounds that inhibit protein synthesis. Are you are saying they work best as combination therapies with chemo agents?
JS: Yes. Many of OncoGenex's trials are in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. What we saw at ASCO, with both drugs, was that more advanced cancer patients—what we call "poor prognosis" patients—responded significantly to both custirsen in the prostate cancer trial and to apatorsen in one of its bladder cancer trials. In the AFFINITY trial, a Phase 3 prostate cancer study with custirsen, there were going to be more than 600 patients, and more than 400 of them fell into this poor prognosis category, which meant the likelihood they would have a response to the drug was much higher. That caused the company to apply to the FDA for an amendment to the trial, which would include those 400 patients in a separate trial and data set. In June the FDA agreed to this.
TLSR: The FDA has not been big on post-hoc data linking. Normally, the agency will not allow companies to go back and segment out a subgroup of responders and submit that data for approval. It will require a company to perform another trial. How did this occur?
JS: There's a precedent here. Pfizer Inc. (PFE:NYSE) has received approval for Torisel (temsirolimus) on a label expansion for poor prognosis, again not working in the overall population but in the most advanced cases. One of our favorite stocks, Incyte Corp. (INCY:NASDAQ), had a negative Jakafi (ruxolitinib) Phase 2 pancreatic cancer study, but in a subset analysis, the compound extended survival in a meaningful subset of advanced patients, showing a very good hazard ratio. In our view, Jakafi has blockbuster potential in various solid tumors as we wait for Phase 3 data.
In the case of OncoGenex, the company has shown that the poor prognosis patients did better, and the FDA quickly said, "OK, go ahead with that." By the end of this year, we will know the answer on the 400-patient, poor prognosis population of this Phase 3 AFFINITY trial.
TLSR: What about apatorsen? Will there be a similar analysis?
JS: We had a similar interim look at poor prognosis patients with severe bladder cancer, and it showed a very strong benefit, with a very good hazard ratio, in that population versus chemo alone.
TLSR: Briefly distill your growth theory for OncoGenex. Why should an investor own it?
JS: In the case of both custirsen and apatorsen, we have precedent with both clinical and regulatory events that make us believe one of the company's seven trials will be successful. With a $74M market cap, OncoGenex has about $75M on its balance sheet, which is a lot of cash. We believe that the risk/reward here is exceptional, and we'll know the answer very soon. Even if the drug fails in the prostate cancer trial, you still have all the cash there. I don't see the stock going down very much from where it is now, at about $2.50/share.
But if the drug does work, this stock could go up multiples from where it is now. It's the same thing with apatorsen in the bladder cancer studies, where there are a bunch of Phase 2 trials. We have catalysts, we have cash, and we have a stock completely out of favor. It almost doesn't get any more out of favor than this. We love that.
TLSR: Jay, this amended Phase 3 AFFINITY trial with custirsen in poor prognosis patients is an open-label trial, which means the company must run a pivotal Phase 3 trial if this one is successful. Isn't that right?
JS: Actually, no. The FDA told the company that if this poor prognosis subset is successful, it could file a new drug application (NDA) for approval on that trial alone. In fact, the company says it is preparing an NDA now.
JM: Investors should understand that this subset approval is for prostate cancer patients who will die of the disease. This is not a broad-based approval for all prostate cancer patients. But this is a nice niche opportunity for end-stage patients who have failed all other therapies. If you're going to use chemotherapy, there's a strong argument for using a drug like this with the chemo, and being able to get reimbursement for it. Getting approval for any patient population would be a huge win for a company like OncoGenex.
TLSR: Would you go to the next name, please?
JM: I'm following Jay's fallen-angel theme here with Sangamo BioSciences Inc. (SGMO:NASDAQ), for which there is almost no positive sentiment on Wall Street. Despite that, we see a second-generation core gene therapy technology here. Sangamo is using non-viral vectors, which could allow repeat dosing in patients. It's using zinc fingers in multiple ways to turn genes on or off.
Part of the negative sentiment historically may also be attached to an HIV program that seems potentially too good to be true. Again, within the HIV program, we're looking at a subset of patients, which is a bit of a theme now in biotech. The agent here is SB-728-T, and the company believes the patient subset could be around 15% of the HIV population. The T cells are infused back into the patient, and a very strong T-cell engraftment and immune response against the virus has been demonstrated. You take some of the patients off their antiviral medication, and the immune system can attack the virus.
"Companies need to deliver the data. That is where the deals and the partnerships come from." — John McCamant
The T-cell work being done at Sangamo is cutting edge, and it dovetails with other things going on in the T-cell world for cancer. We expect some Phase 2 data from the HIV program by year-end, and that will be important in terms of the next stage of development and whether it's a partnerable program.
At the end of the day, there are a slew of early-stage programs at Sangamo, including one that would compete directly with the bluebird bio Inc. (BLUE:NASDAQ) program for the hemoglobinopathies—beta thalassemia and also sickle cell, two closely related diseases. The program at Sangamo is partnered with Biogen Inc. (BIIB:NASDAQ). This is an early-stage program, but we are most excited about it. We think it has great potential, but we are not seeing that reflected in the current valuation of the company. As Sangamo's gene therapy program continues to deliver in the clinic, this should draw more investor attention to the company.
TLSR: Another name?
JS: Anthera Pharmaceuticals Inc. (ANTH:NASDAQ) has some similarities to OncoGenex in the sense that it had a trial a couple years back for a drug called blisibimod (b-mod), which failed in systemic lupus erythematosus. Blisibimod is an antagonist of the BAFF cytokine, a member of the tumor necrosis factor family, which is vital to B-cell development and survival. You could think of it as a B-cell blocker. In that failed trial, the data were close to being statistically significant. Just as with OncoGenex, we have kept our eye on this name since then.
Anthera has looked at its own data from that failed trial, as well as that of GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK:NYSE) Benlysta (belimumab), which was approved for lupus back in 2011. Benlysta is a monoclonal antibody whereas blisibimod is a peptibody, but they are in the same family. More recently, Eli Lilly and Co. (LLY:NYSE) had a monoclonal antibody called tabalumab, also a BAFF inhibitor, that failed in lupus in one trial but worked in another. Lilly stopped development of tabalumab in lupus. Having looked at all that data, Anthera has developed a new program for blisibimod in a more defined patient population—in a population of lupus patients with more severe disease, and where GlaxoSmithKline has seen the most benefit with Benlysta. Anthera designed its new trial using input from thought leaders in the industry.
In February we got an interim look at the Phase 3 trial (CHABLIS-SC1) evaluating the systemic lupus erythematosus responder index at six months. It's a 400-patient trial, and what we know is that in more than 200 patients enrolled in the study so far, the drug did not fail. It was recommended that the trial continue to completion.
There is actually a chance this drug will work. We think the odds are improving, because this company and this product have been climbing the learning curve since 2012. The company has chosen the best patient population possible, and the best trial design. More recently, Anthera designed an even more refined, double-blind, Phase 3 study in systemic lupus called CHABLIS 7.5, which will begin in December, enroll 350 patients and use another endpoint—a secondary endpoint in this case—of reducing oral steroid use to under 7.5 mg.
TLSR: The company has another candidate called Sollpura that is readying for a Phase 3 trial. Tell me about that.
JS: It's for a syndrome called exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI)—patients who cannot digest their food. These include cystic fibrosis (CF) patients.
TLSR: We see EPI in the developing world, but in children who don't thrive. Is that a market?
JS: Management believes it's a billion-dollar market, plus another $300M or so for the pediatric indication in children with cystic fibrosis who have EPI. CEO Paul Truex believes many patients don't fall under the CF indication but have similar digestion problems, and that they may be treated with Sollpura. I think people feel much more comfortable buying this stock because the odds of Sollpura working are good and the timeline for approval is shorter than the timeline for blisibimod.
TLSR: Anthera's market cap is at $319M; you have a stock here that some institutional investors can buy. Will Anthera get a boost from institutional support, especially if we begin seeing good data?
JS: It's funny you should ask. I saw Truex in June at the Jefferies conference. He said he was having no problem getting institutions to listen to the Anthera story now that it's got a $300M valuation. Does that make sense?
TLSR: Could we hear one more name?
JM: I'd like to go back to Novavax, which is a platform vaccine technology company. The vast majority of companies in biotech are drug-based, but vaccines are a unique component of the pharmaceutical world, and we see a very large potential opportunity here.
The big event for Novavax occurred back on Aug. 10, with the release of the Phase 2 respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) data from the company's RSV-F vaccine in the elderly. This was a 1,600-patient trial, and it achieved every primary and secondary endpoint, including immunogenicity. Also, the rate of RSV infection or attack was 4.9%, which is going to be key to designing the pivotal Phase 3 study that the company is preparing to initiate in Q4/15.
This is the first time anyone has been able to show protection against RSV in any patient population, let alone the elderly, who are believed to be roughly twice as hard to immunize as, say, pregnant women, which is the next Phase 2 data set we have coming in RSV. What makes this compelling is that, to date, there have been no vaccines approved for RSV. The only drug we have is a preventive antibody called Synagis (palivizumab), which was developed by MedImmune (a unit of AstraZeneca Plc [AZN:NYSE]) for a subset of patients, premature infants, who are at high risk for RSV. Synagis has become a billion-dollar drug despite such a small market.
TLSR: John, margins are normally squeezed down to nothing on immunizations, but given that this would be a unique product, at least for the time being, how much could the RSV immunization be worth?
JM: We believe this RSV vaccine opportunity could be as large as the influenza immunization market is today—a $4B market opportunity. That's huge, given there is little or no premium pricing for flu vaccines because they are equal and competitive. An RSV vaccine would be unique, and would therefore command a premium. This is a tremendous opportunity.
TLSR: Where is the maternal immunization program in the company's timeline?
JM: We will see more data in pregnant women later this month. What we're looking for here is always safety, but also the antibody levels. Given that pregnant women are easier to get an immune response from relative to the elderly, we have a high level of confidence that Novavax will be able to deliver positive RSV data there. RSV is a seasonal disease, like the flu, and it looks like things are aligning such that the company would be able to start its Phase 3 pivotal trial in RSV in the Northern Hemisphere in Q3/15, which would allow it to have data, maybe, next year.
TLSR: Looking at the clinical-stage pipeline at Novavax, I'm noting immunization programs in seasonal flu, pandemic flu and Ebola virus disease. Could you briefly comment on these?
JM: Novavax has put out some excellent flu vaccine data. Historically, this company has been known for its government contracts with the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which has provided Novavax with more than $150M to date. The company is eligible for another $100M for seasonal and pandemic flu programs. It had some very good success developing a vaccine against the avian flu; the most important aspect was that it was able to do it in 30 days. The World Health Organization put out a gene sequence to the world's vaccine developers, and Novavax was the first to develop it.
Novavax not only has a very powerful technology, but it is also very quick, and looks like it could address emergent threats like the avian flu, where time is of the essence. The company did the same thing for Ebola, developing a working vaccine in just 30 days and testing it within 90 days. We've had some very positive human data to date. One of the unique components is that it is the only vaccine that targets the current strain of Ebola as well as the previous strain. We think Novavax has a very powerful vaccine platform.
TLSR: John, Novavax is a $2.7B company, and its valuation has more than doubled over the last 12 months. What would you say to investors who believe this company's valuation is currently pretty rich?
JM: The first thing is that the company's pipeline of immunizations is made up of wholly owned assets. With good Phase 2 proof-of-concept data in RSV, we have a truly disruptive technology. This is a multibillion-dollar vaccine to prevent something for which nothing is currently available. The pharmaceutical industry has been trying to tackle RSV for years. Novavax, which was a smaller company not that many years ago, is now the world's leading vaccine company in the RSV space.
TLSR: Given the morbidity we see in the elderly with RSV, would you expect the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to approve this immunization immediately?
JM: Yes, certainly. And we are looking at a premium of maybe $50 or $100, on top of a $50 vaccine. The company has already been putting out data on the pharmacoeconomics. It's not just morbidity; there are also mortalities and hospitalization costs associated with RSV, particularly in the elderly.
The vaccine would also prevent extended hospitalizations in "preemies." These hospitalizations are running into tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. We've always known vaccines are basically the cheapest way to deliver medicine.
TLSR: What is your target price on Novavax?
JM: We just raised our buy limit to $15/share and our target price to $20/share.
TLSR: Thank you, John. Thank you, Jay.
John McCamant is the editor of the Medical Technology Stock Letter, a leading investment newsletter. McCamant has spent 25 years on the frontlines of biotechnology investing. He has established an extensive network that includes contacts throughout the investment banking and venture capital communities. His expertise in biotechnology investments is a subject of media interest. He is frequently consulted and quoted by The Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, CBS and Marketwatch.
Jay Silverman has been a biotechnology and pharmaceuticals analyst for more than 25 years. In 2000, he was ranked #1 in biotechnology by The Wall Street Journal's Best on the Street annual analyst survey, in addition to being a "Home-Run Hitter" for stock selection. As an analyst, he was frequently quoted in The Wall Street Journal, TIME, Fortune and featured on CNBC and CNN. From 2010-2012, Silverman was vice president, business development for Thorne Research, a leading natural products company. From 2007-2010, he was vice president, strategic development for Diversified Natural Products, which merged with Thorne Research in June 2010. From 2003-2005, Silverman was a partner in charge of healthcare investments at Colonial Fund LLC, a New York-based hedge fund. Silverman is also president of COLS Consulting. From 1997-2001, he was a managing director, senior biotechnology analyst for Robertson, Stephens. From 1992-1997, Silverman was senior biotech and medical technology analyst for Schroeder Wertheim. From 1987-1992, he was senior biotechnology and pharmaceuticals analyst for Nomura Research Institute. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1987 with a bachelor's degree in economics/finance.
Read what other experts are saying about:
Want to read more Life Sciences Report interviews like this? Sign up for our free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles have been published. To see recent interviews with industry analysts and commentators, visit our Streetwise Interviews page.
1) Dr. George S. Mack conducted this interview for Streetwise Reports LLC, publisher of The Gold Report, The Energy Report and The Life Sciences Report, and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor. He owns, or his family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: None.
2) The following companies mentioned in the interview are sponsors of Streetwise Reports: Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. The companies mentioned in this interview were not involved in any aspect of the interview preparation or post-interview editing so the expert could speak independently about the sector. Streetwise Reports does not accept stock in exchange for its services.
3) John McCamant: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: Anthera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Incyte Corp., The Medicines Company, Novavax Inc. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I determined and had final say over which companies would be included in the interview based on my research, understanding of the sector and interview theme. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.
4) Jay Silverman: I own, or my family owns, shares of the following companies mentioned in this interview: Anthera Pharmaceuticals Inc., Incyte Corp., The Medicines Company, Novavax Inc., OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals Inc. I personally am, or my family is, paid by the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. My company has a financial relationship with the following companies mentioned in this interview: None. I was not paid by Streetwise Reports for participating in this interview. Comments and opinions expressed are my own comments and opinions. I determined and had final say over which companies would be included in the interview based on my research, understanding of the sector and interview theme. I had the opportunity to review the interview for accuracy as of the date of the interview and am responsible for the content of the interview.
5) Interviews are edited for clarity. Streetwise Reports does not make editorial comments or change experts' statements without their consent.
7) From time to time, Streetwise Reports LLC and its directors, officers, employees or members of their families, as well as persons interviewed for articles and interviews on the site, may have a long or short position in securities mentioned. Directors, officers, employees or members of their families are prohibited from making purchases and/or sales of those securities in the open market or otherwise during the up-to-four-week interval from the time of the interview until after it publishes.