Reovirus is naturally occuring and ubiquitous. You probably have been infected with it, didn't get sick, and have antibodies to it. It is already in the environmment, probably has been for millenia, and hasn't mutated into anything harmful so far.
You are making an incorrect assumption. The virus is naturally occuring and is therefor not patentable. What they have patented is the use of the virus for treating cancer. Also they have patents for a manufacturing process acceptable to the FDA.
Two things are required, first the virus has to get into a cell, and second it has to be able to reproduce in the cell.
Reovirus utilizes a very common receptor for entry into the cell and can apparently enter just about any cell in the body.
Normal cells have mechanisms which prevent the replication of reovirus (and others) . Two thirds of cancers (possibly higher in metastatic cancer) have a mutation on the RAS pathway which result in the reovirus being able to replicate and kill the cell.
As you suggest, there are an number of viruses which have demonstrated anti-tumour activity. Furthermore, several viruses have been genetically modified to be oncolytic.
Reovirus is naturally occuring and appears to be the safest
See:
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v5/n12/abs/nrc17 50.html
I believe the standard for cure is no recurrance after five years. Oncolytics ran a phase 1 trial which started on June 6 2000, in which terminal patients (3 months expected survival). At an informal meeting this spring Dr Thompson indicated thate were some of the phase 1 patients still alive. So they haven't yet met the standard for cure - but it looks promising.
Only if a significant number of slashdotters(?) decide to buy the stock.
In terms of an investment this could be the next (ugh) Microsoft. There are 1.4 million new cancers each year in the US. The reovirus could be used to treat about 0.9 million of these. If it works as well as initial indications suggest, it will take a very large market share. Conservatively allowing 50% market penetration that is 0.45 million doses. Some have suggested a price per treatment of $10,000. This would give gross revenues of $4.5 billion. Oncolytics currently have issued about 25 million shares. That puts gross revenues at $180 per share. And that is just from the US market!
Of course there are no guarantees and many hurdles to clear yet. There is a huge potential reward here, the risk is still considerable but is diminishing as trials progress.
Is it worth investing a few bucks at $4.20? Do your research and make your decision.
Actually, there are a number of viruses with oncolytic properties. Besides reovirus, there has been work done using newcastle, vsv, herpes, and adenovirus. Some have been modified viruses. These bring into question the stability of the modification and the manufacturability of the modified virus.
Not quite on topic, but there is some speculation that asthma may be in some part due to lack of exposure to relatively benign bacteria during infancy. The idea is that asthma results from the immune system overreacting due to improper early development.
Dirt is good for you?
Sorry. Wrong! Oncolytics is using a naturally occuring form of the virus. Dearing 3 strain. No manipulation is involved. The virus is apparently quite stable and unlikely to mutate.
They already have eight US patents related to the use of the virus to treat cancer. Obviously, since the virus is naturally occuring, they can't patent the virus but they can patent a new use for it.
I expect this was thread was started by another shareholder not a company employee. A lot of Oncolytics shareholders (myself included)have been frustrated by the company being below just about everybody's radar. Dr. Thompson was quoted as saying something to the effect that if he found an employee posting to something like the ONC board on Stockhouse, he would fire him. The company seems determined to keep this low key!
Just another promising treatment? Much more than just promising IMO.
For anyone interested in the (IMO huge) stock potential of this there are good bulletin boards on Yahoo (ONCY)and Stockhouse.ca (ONC) There is a lot of good information and more of the usual dross from people who have nothing to say but still can't resist the urge to say it.
They can't patent the virus, but they can, and have, patented the use of the reovirus to treat cancer. Oncolytics have eight US patents related to reovirus issued. Apparently they have an additional 100 or so applications in the works.
In addition they have a process to manufacture the virus in the required purity. You can bet that there are patent applications covering that as well.
Reovirus has been with us for millennia. 70% have antibodies to the virus. Oncolytics have given this to 30 people in trials which have been reported on, plus an additional number yet to be reported. In one trial the virus was injected into the brains of (terminal - 3mo.) glioblastoma patients with no serious adverse effects. (3 of 6 were alive after about 15 months as of a month ago.)
In terms of long term effects; wouldn't those have to be worse than the long term effects of cancer to be a problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Reovirus is naturally occuring and ubiquitous. You probably have been infected with it, didn't get sick, and have antibodies to it. It is already in the environmment, probably has been for millenia, and hasn't mutated into anything harmful so far.
You are making an incorrect assumption. The virus is naturally occuring and is therefor not patentable. What they have patented is the use of the virus for treating cancer. Also they have patents for a manufacturing process acceptable to the FDA.
Two things are required, first the virus has to get into a cell, and second it has to be able to reproduce in the cell. Reovirus utilizes a very common receptor for entry into the cell and can apparently enter just about any cell in the body. Normal cells have mechanisms which prevent the replication of reovirus (and others) . Two thirds of cancers (possibly higher in metastatic cancer) have a mutation on the RAS pathway which result in the reovirus being able to replicate and kill the cell. As you suggest, there are an number of viruses which have demonstrated anti-tumour activity. Furthermore, several viruses have been genetically modified to be oncolytic. Reovirus is naturally occuring and appears to be the safest See: http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v5/n12/abs/nrc17 50.html
I believe the standard for cure is no recurrance after five years. Oncolytics ran a phase 1 trial which started on June 6 2000, in which terminal patients (3 months expected survival). At an informal meeting this spring Dr Thompson indicated thate were some of the phase 1 patients still alive. So they haven't yet met the standard for cure - but it looks promising.
In terms of an investment this could be the next (ugh) Microsoft. There are 1.4 million new cancers each year in the US. The reovirus could be used to treat about 0.9 million of these. If it works as well as initial indications suggest, it will take a very large market share. Conservatively allowing 50% market penetration that is 0.45 million doses. Some have suggested a price per treatment of $10,000. This would give gross revenues of $4.5 billion. Oncolytics currently have issued about 25 million shares. That puts gross revenues at $180 per share. And that is just from the US market!
Of course there are no guarantees and many hurdles to clear yet. There is a huge potential reward here, the risk is still considerable but is diminishing as trials progress.
Is it worth investing a few bucks at $4.20? Do your research and make your decision.
Actually, there are a number of viruses with oncolytic properties. Besides reovirus, there has been work done using newcastle, vsv, herpes, and adenovirus. Some have been modified viruses. These bring into question the stability of the modification and the manufacturability of the modified virus.
Not quite on topic, but there is some speculation that asthma may be in some part due to lack of exposure to relatively benign bacteria during infancy. The idea is that asthma results from the immune system overreacting due to improper early development. Dirt is good for you?
Sorry. Wrong! Oncolytics is using a naturally occuring form of the virus. Dearing 3 strain. No manipulation is involved. The virus is apparently quite stable and unlikely to mutate.
They already have eight US patents related to the use of the virus to treat cancer. Obviously, since the virus is naturally occuring, they can't patent the virus but they can patent a new use for it.
I expect this was thread was started by another shareholder not a company employee. A lot of Oncolytics shareholders (myself included)have been frustrated by the company being below just about everybody's radar. Dr. Thompson was quoted as saying something to the effect that if he found an employee posting to something like the ONC board on Stockhouse, he would fire him. The company seems determined to keep this low key! Just another promising treatment? Much more than just promising IMO. For anyone interested in the (IMO huge) stock potential of this there are good bulletin boards on Yahoo (ONCY)and Stockhouse.ca (ONC) There is a lot of good information and more of the usual dross from people who have nothing to say but still can't resist the urge to say it.
Only if you make money doing it. You would probably be at greater risk of being sued by people getting other infections form the dirty water.
They can't patent the virus, but they can, and have, patented the use of the reovirus to treat cancer. Oncolytics have eight US patents related to reovirus issued. Apparently they have an additional 100 or so applications in the works. In addition they have a process to manufacture the virus in the required purity. You can bet that there are patent applications covering that as well.
Reovirus has been with us for millennia. 70% have antibodies to the virus. Oncolytics have given this to 30 people in trials which have been reported on, plus an additional number yet to be reported. In one trial the virus was injected into the brains of (terminal - 3mo.) glioblastoma patients with no serious adverse effects. (3 of 6 were alive after about 15 months as of a month ago.) In terms of long term effects; wouldn't those have to be worse than the long term effects of cancer to be a problem?