This ones a heck of a specualive investment but it seems that the institutions are willing to stomp up the cash to back it in the long term.

Heres the latest news from Killik stocbrokers on the company..........

MEDICAL MARKETING Joint Venture

We recently highlighted Medical Marketing (MMG) as worthy of attention. The company, in which I have a personal share holding, has this morning announced the formation of a joint venture, Genvax, to develop a novel DNA vaccine platform technology.

Human trials have been underway since 2001 in areas such as Lymphoma and Myeloma but the technology has broad applications in cancer, viral and bacterial infections (hence the term platform). The technology works on boosting the immune system by teaching it to identify hard to recognise cancer proteins as foreign and destroy them. Early results from the 25 patient trial in lymphoma are encouraging and evaluation of the result is expected by March 2005. Successful results should mean big pharmaceutical groups will start to take financial and commercial interests around that time.

This looks to be the first of a series of announcements due from Medical Marketing as it has a range of predominantly cancer trials moving into the clinical stage. (news flow could push the price higher)

The stock has made good progress in recent sessions up to the mid-80p level where the company is valued at just under 40 million. ENDS.

Please DYOR

cheers GF.

A bit down on the market Mark in general, perhaphs we might see better things after the General Election. As for MMG Im still very bullish and hold 7 tranches in profit going all the way back into the 40s and hold 3 tranches out of profit the highest being held at 211.5p. Id hold onto them as I expect institutional upgrades very soon, indeed we might get one from Killik today or perhaphs tomorrow. I will post it if and when it comes.

Mickey I cant say exactly how long it takes the drugs to go from one phase to another thats far too complex and depends on the drug itself, what I can say though that D Best CEO said the company would have 10 drugs in trials by the end of the year and the Genevax prostrate trial is very near commercialisation so we should have news pretty quickly on that.

Last night around 2 in the morning after doing my normal nightly research I needed to make sure I had got the story right on this one after the days events and the big fall in share price, I wondered were Evil K and the Bears right and I wrong?. So I had a further look at the free Mike Walters article which I reproduce below and which the Bear argument is centered around especially the Bearish Analyst report.

After reading it again I am absolutley sure I am right in being positive on this one and I ask you guys to have a re - read especially in the light of what we now know after the positives from yesterdays web cast, please take a very close look at the parts I have highlighted those which Mike points out are flawed by the 'now gone analyst'. I look upon the Bear case as being one centered upon total ignorance and missunderstanding of MMIs Technical Business Plan and can only think that those selling out are doing so because of financial need based on credit facility tightening.

Heres Mike Walters article what do you think now after yesterdays web cast?????????????????????????????????????????????????????.

Waandering Star
11/4/2005 (119264)

Waandering Star

Has our Gazza retired hurt, limping off to the quack with a fractured forelock after bashing his brains against Medical Marketing International (MMG)?

Who can say? In the nasty netherworld of stock bashers, bullies and shorters, we rarely see more than a shadow of the truth, glimpsing just a fleeting fragment of what is really happening as it flashes behind the backs of the massed regulators in their gilded docklands towers.

Forgive me this indulgent opening. But there will be many ready to join in a satisfied chuckle at speculation that KBC Peel Hunt analyst Gary Waanders might be leaving the firm. The stories come in the wake of two extraordinary reports which served to provide cart loads of ammunition for those who could not countenance the remarkable recent rise in MMGs shares from 80p or so to touch 300p a couple of weeks ago.

Gaz got it wrong in the eyes of many, drastically wrong. It was clear from the very beginning that he had not spoken to the company, and there were errors galore in it. It was also obvious that this was fodder for the usual wrecking crew to join him in assaulting the share price (see my bulletin board comment That Peel Hunt note on March 25). Time and again on our board, I warned that the note carried many errors and should not be taken too seriously (see Factual errors and false markets on the board April I).

Because of pressure of work, the complex nature of the science, and my reluctance to give greater publicity for something so far out of whack, I have been slow to talk about it in detail. The regulators discourage the circulation of many broker research notes to private investors, so the actual reports have not been published on the internet. Most have had simply to rely on assertions by the shorters that Waanders did a good job in estimating that the shares were worth 40p or less.

That is arrant nonsense, of course. Claims from the shorters that Waanders had produced a smashing or excellent sell note, with comments written in a balanced and reasoned manner were always outrageous. They came from sources who appear never to have raised the matter with the company and were ill-equipped to make any such judgement, relying only on a greedy gallop to damage the share price.

It was always astonishing that someone from a house like KBC Peel Hunt should produce a savage attack without first discussing the complex science with the company. Quite why any analyst should produce such a report out of the blue is unclear. On the face of it, anyone judging the value of MMGs research so scathingly must have sent a shudder through other research-based businesses where KBC Peel Hunt is broker.

Once the shock of the initial report was in the market, touted to all and sundry on the internet by shorter Evil Knievil and his tip sheet cronies, it was still more of a surprise that Waanders did not reconsider. Instead, after meeting the company and discussing his first note, he effectively retracted many of his key negatives not by owning up, but by re-stating his position without withdrawing his extraordinarily low valuation.

Closer analysis, though, makes it clear that he recognised that much of the ground on which he had based his original attack had shifted from beneath his feet. Indeed, anyone reading the second note, dated April 7, might almost conclude from his text that he was about the recommend the shares.

It is worth dealing with a few particulars, bearing in mind that the first March 24 (Waanders One) version was one and a half pages long, while the follow-up (Waanders Revised) spans nearly five pages.

Look first at Genvax, where Dr Freda Stevenson and the team at the University of Southampton appear to have achieved a breakthrough in developing DNA vaccines in the treatment of cancer.

Waanders One (W1) talks about some cause for concern regarding commercial development, and goes on to raise queries about intellectual property and such. W1 moves from may well be patentable but significant prior art exists in a number of closely related fields to confident that the company will be able to protect and defend its IP in Waanders Revised (WR).

In W1, he appears to confuse ownership of patents for delivering the vaccine (Vical has one) with ownership of patents for the vaccine. He suggests in W1 that technology rights have been licensed by the likes of Merck, Pfizer and others and in WR acknowledges that there would be no problem for Genvax we would not expect MMG to have any difficulty in obtaining a licence and we do not believe the terms of such a licence would be onerous. That effectively says that there should be no great obstacle to commercial viability on the IP front, and that obtaining the necessary licence is not an obstacle to raising value.

In W1, he implies that MMG may be hiding something, asking assuming the results and the potential were so significant, why has MMI not invited analysts to a presentation? In WR, he climbs down the company has, correctly, deferred full publication of the trial results to those organisations (the cancer charities which financed the research).

W1 suggests the market is small. WR changes tack, admitting the main commercial focuswill be the development of vaccines for broader cancer application such a prostate cancer or gastrointestinal cancers (stomach and colon) In fact, these cancers represent huge markets with massive unmet needs so the original statement was wrong. He admits as much in WR, saying Gastrointestinal cancers and prostate cancer, by virtue of the number of cases, represent much more significant potential market opportunities.

Attempt W1 looks at certain vaccine types and says from a commercial product point of views and manufacturing, this is a nightmare. In WR, he backs down, talking of the potential size of the market and potential manufacturing issues facing these bespoke vaccines, which we have learnt, are not insurmountable.

In W1, he mentions CEA carcino-embryonic antigen and dismisses the Genvax research, saying there is plenty of prior art on the antigen and its use in a cancer vaccine would effectively queer the commercialisation pitch. In WR, he crawls out of the wreckage, muttering This body of knowledge should not be considered negative because the company should still be able to obtain protection for its IP concerning the specific fusion protein combination of CESA with tetanus toxoid fragment.

He goes on in W1 to suggest that the vaccine platform holds little commercial value due to prior art concerns and market strategy This conclusion appears to be rendered invalid in his WR follow-up.

Looking at his assessment in W1 of Oncosense, the company which is developing ruthenium compounds as a possible treatment for cancer, along with a pineapple extract, he initially talks about Early development stage. After talking to the company, in WR he realises that it is much further advanced, and says The company has selected three compounds.

He suggests in W1 that it will be probably 1 year before clinical trials could be started. In WR, he admits they could proceed into Phase I/II this yearearlier thanwe had expected. He also talks of development hurdles which will be substantial given the more stringent regulatory regimes in place today, then in WR admits MMG has been advised that it only needs to complete short (2 week) toxicity studiesbefore it can proceed in human clinical studies. He also in WR talks about a conventional path through clinical development that should not be more onerous.

In W1, he talks about competing against drugs which are effectively generic and where substantial competition exists in the market, while in WR he backs down, and talks about targeting cancers where current treatment options are limited or non-existent, notably lung cancers an obviously large market opportunity.

I apologise if this is too detailed, and might sometimes seem to be splitting hairs. It is obvious that those who wish to denigrate the company can wave all such things away as fine, irrelevant detail. Anyone, though, who wraps a towel around their head and sits down to compare Waanders One with Waanders Revised will be aware there are substantial differences in the comment.
They might wonder why, in the light of new facts revealed to him by actually talking to the company, he has not revised his niggardly assessment of share value, something which continues to play into the hands of his apparently blindly devoted chorus of sceptics and short sellers.

It is right for all to acknowledge that setting valuations of such companies is notoriously difficult. Time and again I have warned of that. Most drugs do fail in the course of development, and some fail even after getting to market. So it is possible to take a totally negative view, and prove correct.

Normally, though, the market weights probabilities and possibilities. Other analysts who have looked at Medical Marketing have come to more optimistic valuations than Waanders. He is entitled to his opinion, and we are all entitled to wonder whether he is still working as an analyst at KBC Peel Hunt and if not, why not.

Toodle-pip!

I hold shares in Medical Marketing.

Ends

cheers GF.

GF - ok - so when do you sleep ? 'cos I can vouch that you are on the boards most mornings and also late at night.

B

All round temperamental small cap market at the mo could be something to do with the articles that have been popping up saying that the AIM is overvalued and the great run that small caps have had is coming to an end. Still, this is only an opinion. ???

Hi Baza, I run my business during the night, Large Industrial Cleaning (we have to be there when all others arent there if you know what I mean)and on quite periods do a bit of research etc in the office. Im off to bed now. I would appreciate your thoughts on my post above.

cheers GF. Ps, chad Im certain you are right and thats why we need to move from momentum stocks to sound fundy stocks with sound asset backing. The tech blue skyers have had it now for a while, its back to the boring. Sees ya later.

Hi GF, hows it goin sir??

Look at Tandem Group (TND) on a p/e of 5-6, 2m+ cash. Mkt cap 8m. EPS have just doubled from last year as profits have too. Profit pre tax is now 1.2m. It is likely to get tipped soon I would have thought

Totally neglected and undervalued - let me know what you think.

As for mmg, i honestly thought by reading ek's views on the other side and the hammering it took i thought it would go all the way back down to 40p. Hats off to those who stayed in - you are the real investors. the price has held up well considering and you have been rewarded with positive rns about a patent.

GL all (not a holder)

Hi Legend,

many thanks for the foot up but Ive already got a few tandem. There big fans in the Pauly pilot cafe on this one on the Motley Fool board.

cheers GF. Why not have a few MMG, they are holding up pretty well today as you say.

This is their chart showing the advantages of Ruthenium over Platinum.
The "Ideal" column shows what properties are desirable and the other two show how Ruthenium and Platinum stack up.



cheers GF.

Gf - I am really not qualified to comment, whilst I think I am reasonably intelligent - I have no background in investment analysis nor medicine - I would class myself as a herd trader - one who listens and watches and picks up the crumbs - usually after the feast - but enough crumbs to make a profit as in SEO, NLR, CBY, VML etal. I am retired and like to amuse myself by normally finding shares that others have researfhed ('cos I would not know how) and jumping on the bandwagon. Mind you I have made some horrendous mistakes and I still hold CWV which has plummetted down from 20p to 1.5p - which was when I belatedly learnt the value of a stop loss

However, what impresses me about MMG is that the management seem to have their heads screwed on - and they appear to be being ulta cautious - which I like in a company but which does not help us in the short term . I am convinced this will benefit us in the long term - and they have an impressive product range with many at an advanced stage undergoing trials.

I have about 35k of shares which at 190 gives me break even as I stumbled on these quite late on and bought at 213, 183, 189 & 190. However I plan to hold these for the medium term recognising that they may fall back some more in the short term - although I am hoping that 180 is providing a resistance level.

In summary - I like the management team, I think their product range is sound and exciting, I like their plans for the future - perhaps they could with help on the sales and marketing front - and they seem to have sufficient funds. They are also pushing against an open door. However - there is never smoke without fire - so when others say that these shares are only worth 40p - I tend to listen - then make my own judgement

Cheers Baza

Good post GF. I've been out most of the day and have come back feeling a lot more positive. When I think about MMG it's got to be difficult to value potential. Are the shares worth 180 or 300, who knows. The true value can only be arrived at when there is something tangable to offer one of the big pharmas. If you strip out the hope/potential value then it doesn't look good. But that's what companies like this are all about...potential. If just a few of the drugs they are bringing forward succeed then everyone is a winner big time but IF they fail then we all loose. So which perspective do you look at it from. Me, well I'm in from 107 to 260 and I feel positive. This is a winner it just has to be. Think about it, someone has developed a vaccine against cancer. Now is that potential or what. You've got to believe if only for the poor souls that one day might have to take it. I'm holding and if you have hope and believe then you'll do the same.

LOL

MS

Got this from the other place. The last paragraph says it all for me.

A0469514 - 26 Apr'05 - 22:34 - 5331 of 5359


On Genvax, it appears that the vaccine has worked very well in the lymphoma trial but it seems to require an individual vaccine to be engineered for each patient. Likewise in the myeloma trial. This sounds to me as though it must be extremely expensive for the NHS to take on, though Mr. Best did suggest that there may be ways around it. The national blood service, I think he said, were looking at ways to create individual vaccines relatively cheaply.

However, the next generation of Genvax therapies to go into trial will be a vaccine against prostate cancer where the antigens are common to most patients. Thus the same vaccine should work with most people. Prostate cancer is very common in older males and is one of the more difficult types to treat. Relatively little previous research has been carried out in this field so there is a substantial unmet need. A successful vaccine here could be another blockbuster and Phase IIa trials are starting now. Some readers on here may, I suspect, have a personal interest in this.
I was not aware of this trial previously. Maybe others were.

Finally, trials for colon cancer (Phase IIa) and stomach cancer (Phase I) will start shortly. Both of these are, as I understood it, "one product suits all" types and thus are very much comercially viable.

In all of these posts I talk about the comercial aspects but I do not want to give the impression that this is all I care about. On the contrary, one of my motivations for investing in such companies as MMG is the thought that my dosh may just be doing some good in finding relief for sufferers of some of these awful diseases. It has got to be better than investing in tobacco companies anyway.

Xylos

MS

From the other place. The guys that post on MMG are really on the ball. Some excellent knowledge and all free, can't be bad.

BennytheBall - 27 Apr'05 - 11:24 - 5353 of 5360


Xylos, a preventative vaccine treatment for cancer is something of a holy grail in medecine. Some of the evidence from the early Genvax studies, the fact that an immune response is produced in bone marrow donors who are donating their bone marrow to patients and that immune reponse is replicated in the actual patient, is amongst the most exciting data so far produced. It's difficult to get any immune response in patients whose immune system has been knocked out by chemotherapy, but initially it was only those patients who could try the vacinne. Getting regulatory approval for healthy donors to take the vaccine was a beurocratic/research protocol breakthrough in itself, but they have only shown mild flu symtoms as a result and the actual patients' have gone into remission as a result of the pre-priming of their donated bone marrow to kill off the cancer cells remaining. The next step is to treat patients before they have had their immune system knocked out by chemotherapy.

There must be some synergy with ruthenium here, since the toxicity is far lower.

But the main point is that if an immune response can be triggered in healthy donors without significant risk, that is the beginnings of evidence that a preventative treatment can be developed. If prostate cancer antigens are similar in all sufferers to the point that a single DNA Vaccine can be developed, if it efficacious with sufferers it is a forgone conclusion that there will be moves to take it into a preventative vacinnation programme, since those likely to develop prostate cancer are so easily identifiable (as a result of family history).

MS

Excellent posts Mickey. Thanks for copying them over.

Some constructive posts there Mickey, thanks for sharing them with us.

Baza, dont talk daft of course your qualified to talk about this subject and stock. I dont think anybody on this thread is an expert, maybe Mitzy knows a lot more than most of us but your as good as anyone else . Dont put yourself down mate were all pals here.

Its a difficult subject I admit and its even worse trying to value a company, but if we get the input like tonight from Mickey we should have a fair enough depth of knowledge.

Give me a boring old established name from the past and as an accountant Ill kick the ass off it.

cheers GF. PS, going over to check on a team of 24 now who are cleaning up a textile engineers. Pound to a penny the lazy gits are having a tea break lol, sees yer later.

Thanks for those few kind word GF - I will continue watch listen & learn

Baza

Under pressure again today. Cant go on for much longer.

cheers GF.

Dipped my toes in again and topped up at 175p just now as according to their forecast they could have up to 10 compounds in trials by the year end which is a bigeer portfolio than some of the big majors..cannot see thses getting much cheaper.

You put your money where your mouth is................

Good luck.

Why the drop again today?

Im out at the moment. Seems to me that this one's going to slide for a while while we aint got no drug results.

So much has been said about this share,in a positive sense,and those people who must have sold at a higher price obviously think this is going to fall more so they can get in,with given information on the trials and so forth other issues some investors on iii board think downward risk is more than the upward,yet a week ago every thing was positive,regardless what happens i think these will come good short term.