I read the investor presentation and I do believe in the medical value of the treatment. On the other hand, who posts videos to Vimeo? It's still a company and they have to be able to operate and make a profit. Maybe try and do better marketing. If PSS is right, and he probably is, the drug will be useful across a wide variety of cancers, if not all of them. Hence the HUGE financial upside. But you still need a viable corporate entity and a rollout plan that involves making a profit.
Revenues (not g ross margin) last Q were $24 million. Up 60%. But they have ~$80 million in expenses every quarter. Not quite paying the bills yet. I like the stock and am looking for an entry point. But the dilution isn't over yet. The whole thing, even if I trust PSS, seems a little janky. And definitely not about to turn the financial corner. I need to see more to get an entry point. Announcement driven companies are garbage to invest in. When you add the dilution problem it adds to the risk.
So here is the key question I have about profitability. If Anktiva works, let's say, on every single type of cancer, does he have to fund a study for every single cancer type? Because if he does that, the Anktiva patent will expire before he is ever able to make serious money on the thing. What is the plan to roll it out and make money on it? Is he counting on off label use without actually doing all the studies? It seems like a unique problem that might hamstring the monetization of the obvious medical benefit.