The Difference in ONC/Y Before and After 2016 (and more) ONC/Y essentially reinvented itself around 2016. It learned from it previous successes and failures, and it benefited from input from collaborators and the FDA. What is different with ONC/Y now compared to seven years ago?
- The appointment of Matt Coffey as CEO in 2016. Also making a big switch from viewing reovirus primarily as a cytotoxic agent via cell lysis to an immuno-therapeutic agent activating the patient’s own immune system (metaphors like turning cold tumours hot, purple dye to identify the tumour, and splinter in the tumour to initiate the inflammation process): https://www.oncolyticsbiotech.com/press-releases/press-releases/detail/30/oncolytics-biotech-inc-announces-2016-year-end-results. (BTW, in the latest podcast Matt makes a great point about the importance of failed trials, both those of ONC/Y and of the Pharmas they collaborate with. In research, it can be argued, there are no failures if the results lead to greater understanding. If a biotech is unwilling to risk failure then neither are they able to progress. Science is a matter of testing hypotheses. Sometimes the hypotheses are supported, but many times they are not. Both successful and failed results advance the science).
- ONC/Y opened the San Diego office on June 17, 2017: https://www.oncolyticsbiotech.com/press-releases/detail/377/oncolytics-biotech-inc-opens-u-s-based-office-in-san. This increased ONC/Y’s visibility by putting them in a US biotech hub and it gave ONC/Y access to highly qualified and well-connected personnel.
- The hit and miss progress of ONC/Y from its beginnings in 1998 to 2016 is understandable given the novelty of the reovirus as an potential cancer therapeutic and given the industry-wide view of oncolytic viruses as primarily cytotoxic agents (direct cancer killing through cell lysis). It took a growing understanding within the biotech research community to realize the potential of oncolytic viruses as immune-therapeutic agents. ONC/Y had the good fortune of seeing the potential immune-therapeutic effects of the reovirus in an early pancreatic cancer trial, but most clearly in the statistically significant IND213 phase 2 metastatic breast cancer trial. These results got the positive attention of the FDA as well as big Pharma.
- Following 2017 ONC/Y begins collaboration with some of the biggest Pharmas (Pfizer and Merck in 2019, Roche in 2020, etc). This shows Pharma’s growing interest in the Reovirus (pelareorep), particularly following the surprising overall survival benefit in the IND213 mBC trial. As Matt also mentioned in the latest podcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZrkd-7J5Y0) collaborating with big Pharma also gave ONC/Y access to many of the best minds and much useful information (much of it unpublished). Collaboration with big pharma has been a key move in setting up ONC/Y to where they are now. Also, Matt has been going out of his way to sing the praises of big pharma and the FDA. Personalities and egos are part of any deal making process. Matt is being careful to keep all egos and personalities appropriately stroked.
ONC/Y has sent out a clear message that they are looking for a partnership or buy-out deal NOW (2023). They have said it plainly to shareholders, but more importantly to potential pharma partners or purchasers. Pharma knows that if they want to benefit from the potential of pelareorep as a platform immuno-therapeutic now is the time to make a move. If they wait, or if their offer is non-competitive, some other Pharma will get pela. The competitive tension is in place as it needs to be. All information is being made available to all interested pharmas as it needs to be. As the data from BRACELET and GOBLET (panc, l1 and l3 colorectal, and anal) and CAR-T becomes available in the next months it will be made available to everyone. The June ASCO reveal of maturing BRACELET-1 OS results have been highlighted as key. ONC/Y will be mindful of allowing the competitive process to have full effect so that maximum value is provided the shareholders. While I believe at some point in the next few months ONC/Y will give a deadline for a final offer until a final offer is accepted by the board for approval by shareholders we will likely remain totally in the dark. So as tough as it is, patience is called for, as well as staying calm in the face of a volatile stock market and real or imagined fears.
One more thing. Some posters have expressed a concern for ONC/Y holding out for too high a price. Some have expressed that a sale price of $1-2 billion would be sufficient for them. While I understand why some shareholders would feel that way it would be unconscionable for Matt or any of the ONC insiders to signal their willingness to accept a lowball price. I trust the competative process to result in a fair price. Management and the BOD should be showing confidence in what ONC/Y offers, and so they have. The press releases, corporate presentation, and verbal comments from ONC/Y have all been confident, positive, professional, and businesslike. In my view that are doing all the right things. Trust the process.