RE: From ONC's Management Discussion...You provide data to support what costs would/should be on the open list market versus what ONC is claiming (and claiming under audit!).
Then you come back with hard data and convince us that you're not full of bull, again!
You are too full of ego and bull to consider anything objectively – that is why you chose to ignore the facts in my last post.
Did you find the comparison between Dr. Strong’s name being listed before MC on onc’s original patents, research papers (and even in onc’s 2001 Annual Report listing them!) with suggesting that “investor relations activities” constitute the largest part of “Public Company Expenses” since it is the first activity listed, offensive?
Fyi, that just happens to be the conventional protocol in a number of areas – like ingredients listed on a food product label – the main or largest ingredient is listed first.
Now lets see what else the
audited financial information tells us…
The AIF states that audit fees, listed 2nd together with legal fees AFTER “investor relations” (thereby representing the 2nd largest component of Public Company Expenses) totaled $115,000 for 2004 and $88,000 for 2003. legal fees relating to prospectus offerings in 2004 and 2003 are likely similar. Their combined total would still only represent about 10% of the total of all Public Company Expenses.
In addition, officer’s liability insurance, transfer agent and other fees, based on their ordering in the list would amount to the same or likely less than the legal & audit fees.
That suggests it is very likely the amount spent exclusively on investor relations activities from 2002 to 2004 inclusive still exceeds the total amount spent on clinical and pre-clinical trials by a substantial margin.
I suggest that the reason for that is the so called “expansion of the shareholder base” into US & Europe. From Dec/02 to Oct/03, onc did no less than 4, count em FOUR financings…
From the 2001 Annual Report, (dated Jan. 30/02)
“Presently, the Company believes it has adequate cash on hand to fund operations late into 2003 based upon current plans for clinical trials and product development.”
The fact they did no less than 4 (COUNT THEM 4) SEPARATE FINANCINGS by the time “late 2003 rolled around” suggests that they must have achieved all their stated objectives and much more beyond them.
But what were the objectives per the 2001 Annual Report?
Here is what is says
2002 WILL BE AN IMPORTANT YEAR FOR ONCOLYTICS AS WE FOCUS ON THREE MAIN OBJECTIVES:
• MOVING REOLYSIN® THROUGH SELECTED CLINICAL TRIALS glio trial was halted for 6 months shortly after starting, the prostate trial only treated 6 of the planned 45 patients and the US glio trial never got started, - seems like less cash would have been required there than forecast above by Thompson & co
• DEVELOPING A RELATIONSHIP WITH A MAJOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY nice goal to have 20 days after losing Pfizer, but doubtful a major pharma would want cash from onc to enter a partnership (hopefully it is the other way around!) –
• EXPANDING OUR COMPANY’S PIPELINE THROUGH THE IDENTIFICATION AND ACQUISITION OFNEW TECHNOLOGIES AND PRODUCTS
ah, they must have been hinting at the dubious tth investment, funny, though, they didn’t use any existing cash to buy tth shares even though cash is exactly what tth needed at the time. Strange. But at least the two tth insiders got 10% of oncolytics that they could then readily sell and raise cash that way since onc shares were much more liquid at that time than tth shares. Of course, it was tth that needed the cash, not necessarily the insiders. Oh well – good for onc right? They only gave up a 10% equity stake in the company for shares in a cash starved company at an even earlier stage of development that already had a bloated number of shares issued!!!! But they didn’t have to use any cash and their “enough cash till late 2003” forecast was probably then too pessimistic, at least, as some would have had you believe at the time.
Course, we’ve got to ignore stuff like this since it is simply “too negative” – just keep make believing what management says ….they are competent, honest and doing a great job for us shareholders…just be “patient” things will happen “soon”….
unfortunately BIOEYE, you won't post the information available at your fingertips (or should i say Dr. Coffey's fingertips) since it won't refut my post...
that leaves you & management full of bull, yet again! (not surprising though, since i heard alberta does have a lot of them...some even have turned into mad cows unfortunately
ps oncfollower - fyi, i did not find the same breakdown for 2001 & earlier, though i suspect the results would not be much different than for subsequent years if not worse since their ph I trial only featured 18 patients and they had little cash and needed a whole lot more for subsequent trials.
bottom line, they have spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying to raise money with very limited success, especially when you consider the supposed safety and presumed efficacy of reovirus. i think the limited success with raising funds is directly related to the lack of a commitment to a comprehendable clinical trial strategy - why didnt' they just focus on glio exclusively, given their continuous weak cash position?