Crucell « Terug naar discussie overzicht

Ebola paused...from Investorvillage

86 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 » | Laatste
[verwijderd]
0
The worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic may only be controlled through development and utilization of a safe and effective vaccine that will prevent HIV infection. Vaccines using a DNA plasmid to prime the response to an adenoviral vector boost are currently being developed. Due to high prevalence of pre-existing immunity to adenovirus serotype Ad5 in the developing world, this study will evaluate boosting with a different serotype, Ad35, as compared to boosting with the Ad5 serotype

was dus al bekend in mei 2007
wilb52
1
By John Lauerman

Nov. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The surprise failure of Merck & Co.'s AIDS vaccine may doom other test projects and force researchers to consider whether a protective shot against HIV is feasible.

Merck halted clinical trials of its vaccine in September, and last week researchers said that a cold virus used in the shot may have made test subjects more likely to catch HIV. The finding may cause the U.S. to cancel a study of a similar vaccine and raises concern about projects at Crucell NV.

The Merck setback means that 25 years into the AIDS epidemic doctors are still far from having a protective vaccine. An international team of scientists has been recruited to determine precisely what went wrong. Meanwhile, leading researchers are re-examining their vaccine strategies, said David Ho, who has studied HIV since the epidemic began.

``It's a giant step backwards,'' Ho, scientific director of the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York, said in a telephone interview. ``It calls into question all the vaccines using related strategies that have been leading the field.''

Without a vaccine, the mounting number of HIV patients worldwide, now at 40 million, will be harder than ever to slow, and deaths will continue to increase, said John Bartlett, a Johns Hopkins University AIDS researcher in Baltimore. About 2.9 million people died of AIDS-related illness last year, according to the Geneva-based World Health Organization.

Experimental approaches with vaginal microbicides, which researchers hoped would kill HIV during sex, have also failed.

Another Blow

``This really raises the question of what's next,'' Bartlett said in a telephone interview. ``This is yet another blow to the huge enterprise now being devoted to prevention.''

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, fell 19 cents to $57.30 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday. The shares are up 31.4 percent for the year. Crucell fell 20 cents to 12.80 euros in Amsterdam. Its shares are down 33.6 percent this year.

The Merck vaccine wasn't considered by scientists to be a fully protective agent that might end the disease. AIDS researchers agree that their understanding of the virus and how the body's immune system reacts to it aren't advanced enough to produce a preventive shot.

The goal of the study was to see whether people who got the Merck candidate and were later infected would have lower amounts of HIV in their blood. That might delay symptoms and the start of drug treatment, and perhaps interfere with the spread of HIV to other people.

Hopes for the vaccine were dashed when an early look at the results of the study found that more people who got the vaccine caught HIV. Infections were highest among people who began the study with high levels of immunity to the cold virus in the shot, called adenovirus-5.

Genetically Engineered

The HIV Vaccine Trials Network that helped Merck run the study immediately formed a committee to establish whether that had something to do with adenovirus-5, the trial design, the selection of subjects, or pure chance, said Bruce Walker, a Harvard Medical School scientist in Boston leading the panel. Their efforts may be hampered because only small amounts of the study subjects' blood and tissue are available, he said.

Merck said it won't decide how to pursue HIV vaccine research until the analysis is complete.

The failed study ``requires not just Merck but the field overall to consider what is the most promising approach for the future,'' said Mark Feinberg, vice president for medical affairs and policy. ``It's not like there are a whole bunch of promising ideas that one can just shift to next.''

The adenovirus was genetically engineered not to cause colds, and instead to make HIV proteins that would prepare the human immune system to fight a real infection. Scientists are troubled by the potential role it may have played in the vaccine's demise.

`Really Urgent'

Some researchers have said the virus may have spurred immune cells to make more of the proteins that allow HIV's entry.

``This is really urgent right now,'' Walker said in a telephone interview. ``There are a lot of vaccines in the pipeline that are adenovirus-based, and we have to figure out what happened here.''

Crucell's vaccine is designed to avoid immune interactions like the one in the trial, said Jaap Goudsmit, the company's chief science officer. Crucell, based in Leiden, the Netherlands, is developing vaccines against tuberculosis and malaria that use other strains of adenovirus. The company's shares have fallen 5.2 percent since the announcement about the cold virus last week.
Concerns about safety have pushed back a trial of a government-developed vaccine that contains adenovirus. The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Maryland, will hold a meeting of researchers Dec. 12 to determine whether or how to proceed with the vaccine trial.

`Very Conflicted'

The adenovirus in the government's vaccine is genetically different from the one in the Merck trial, and plays a much smaller role in immunization, said Gary Nabel, director of the Vaccine Research Center at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and the vaccine's developer. The threat of HIV makes it crucial to test the vaccine if possible, he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: John Lauerman in Boston at jlauerman@bloomberg.net .

Last Updated: November 15, 2007 00:02 EST
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601...

Als je het goed leest , laat het aan duidelijkheid niets te wensen over.

Op 12 dec zal de NIH besluiten ( volgens mij kunnen ze ook niet anders doen , nl ), dat tot nader order , diverse trials ( waaronder Ebola dus ) worden stilgelegd of niet gecontinueerd.

Er zijn zelfs al twijfels over al die andere adeno vektoren

Er staat niet voor niets:

``It's a GIANT step backwards,''
gogogoo
0
quote:

wilb52 schreef:

Er zijn zelfs al twijfels over al die andere adeno vektoren

Er staat niet voor niets:

``It's a GIANT step backwards,''
Ik ben geen expert, maar ik meen dat die twijfels over die andere vectoren inmiddels weerlegd zijn.
[verwijderd]
0
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
HVTN 502 and HVTN 503 HIV Vaccine Clinical Trials

The HVTN 502, or STEP, HIV Vaccine Study

1. What is the STEP study?

The STEP study, also known as the HVTN 502 or Merck V520-023 study, is a clinical trial to continue evaluating the safety and begin evaluating the efficacy of an investigational HIV vaccine. The vaccine was designed to induce HIV-specific cell-mediated immunity. This form of immunity involves a type of white blood cell called T cells, which suppress the multiplication of HIV and can kill HIV-infected cells. The trial was designed to determine if the vaccine could prevent HIV infection in HIV-negative individuals, reduce the amount of virus in those who do become HIV-infected during the study (the vaccine itself cannot cause HIV infection because it contains only synthetically produced snippets of viral material), or both.

2. Who sponsored and conducted this trial?

Merck & Co. Inc (Whitehouse, NJ) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), cosponsored this investigational HIV vaccine trial. The study was conducted by the NIAID-funded HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) and Merck, which also developed and supplied the candidate vaccine for the trial.

3. When did the study begin?

The STEP study began enrolling and vaccinating volunteers in December 2004.

4. How many participants were involved and where was the study being conducted?

The trial, which was fully enrolled, had 3,000 adult volunteers at sites around the world. The study site locations include

North America: Atlanta, Boston; Birmingham, AL; Chicago; Decatur, GA; Denver; Houston; Los Angeles; Miami; New York; Newark, NJ; Philadelphia; Rochester, NY; St. Louis; San Francisco; Seattle; Toronto; Montreal; and Vancouver, British Columbia; and San Juan, Puerto Rico
South America: Iquitos and Lima, Peru; Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil
The Caribbean: Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Port-au-Prince, Haiti; Kingston, Jamaica
Australia: Sydney


5. What was the investigational vaccine being tested?

The study was testing Merck’s candidate vaccine, the MRKAd5 HIV-1 gag/pol/nef trivalent vaccine, which is based on a weakened adenovirus (type 5 adenovirus), a common virus that normally causes upper respiratory infections, such as the common cold, but that has been altered to render it unable to replicate. The vaccine is a mixture of three weakened adenoviruses that act as vectors, or carriers, for efficiently transporting into the body and presenting to the immune system three HIV proteins: gag, pol and nef.

6. What is the design of the STEP study?

The STEP study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase IIb “test-of-concept” clinical trial. The trial enrolled HIV-negative volunteers between 18 and 45 years of age at high risk of HIV infection who met certain medical and non-medical criteria. After an initial HIV screening, confirmation of eligibility criteria and informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to receive three injections of either the study vaccine or a placebo vaccine. Neither the study investigators nor the trial participants knew who received the study vaccine or placebo while the trial was under way. All participants continue to be closely followed to check their HIV status.

All participants received HIV risk-reduction counseling and various supplies, such as condoms, and information to help them avoid HIV infection throughout the trial. Initially, the study only enrolled individuals with low pre-existing antibodies to type 5 adenovirus based on earlier indications that the vaccine would have greatest potency for these persons; however, subsequent studies with the same vaccine lead to an amendment that opened participation to anyone who met the study’s inclusion criteria irrespective of pre-existing levels of adenovirus antibodies.

7. What is a Data and Safety Monitoring Board, and how does it monitor this study?

A Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) is an independent committee composed of clinical research experts, statisticians, ethicists and community representatives that provides additional oversight of a clinical study. The DSMB regularly reviews data while a clinical trial is in progress to ensure the safety of participants and that any benefits shown in the study are quickly made available to all participants. A DSMB may recommend that a trial, or part of a trial, be stopped if there are safety concerns or if the trial objectives have either been achieved or are unlikely to be achieved. A DSMB looks at analyses that are not available to the investigators or anyone else. Restricting certain information to the DSMB while the trial is ongoing helps to maintain the integrity of the study.

The DSMB for the STEP study met at regular intervals throughout the course of the trial to review the study data. The DSMB meeting on September 18, 2007, was a planned interim meeting to review the potential efficacy of the vaccine based on a predetermined number of cases of HIV infection that had occurred during the study.

8. What were the results of the September 18, 2007 DSMB review?

On September 18, 2007, the DSMB reviewed the interim data obtained from the volunteers who had low antibody levels against adenovirus 5 at the time of enrollment. The DSMB recommended that the trial as originally designed should be discontinued because the trial would not meet its efficacy endpoints. Specifically, 24 cases of HIV infection were seen among the 741 volunteers who received at least one dose of the investigational vaccine, while 21 cases of HIV infection were seen in the 762 participants who received at least one dose of the placebo. In the subgroup of trial participants who had received at least two vaccinations and who were HIV-negative for at least the first 12 weeks of the trial, the DSMB found 19 cases of HIV infection among the 672 volunteers who received the investigational vaccine and 11 cases of HIV infection among the 691 participants who received the placebo. These latter differences were not statistically significant.

As a result of the DSMB review, NIAID, Merck and the HVTN agreed to cease immunizations with the investigational vaccine and continue scheduled follow-up site visits with all volunteers until the data could be more thoroughly evaluated and a course of action developed.

9. What is happening to the volunteers enrolled in the HVTN 502 trial?

Volunteers in the HVTN 502 study are being encouraged to return to their study sites for HIV risk-reduction counseling and protocol-related tests, so that investigators can fully evaluate the effects of the vaccine on HIV acquisition, including whether there is any increased susceptibility to acquisition of HIV infection among those who received the vaccine. Throughout their participation in the study, volunteers have been counseled that prevention strategies to avoid HIV exposure are essential. That message continues to be reinforced during follow-up counseling.

Discussions are under way to define the details of the continued follow-up of the volunteers, including when the volunteers will be told whether they received the vaccine or placebo.

Volunteers who became HIV-infected during the trial ar
[verwijderd]
0
The adenovirus in the government's vaccine is genetically different from the one in the Merck trial, and plays a much smaller role in immunization, said Gary Nabel, director of the Vaccine Research Center at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and the vaccine's developer. The threat of HIV makes it crucial to test the vaccine if possible, he said.
gogogoo
1
Voor soniconer van flosz:

Other trials
There are obvious political reasons both for and against individual nations collecting better data on the scope of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Some countries are motivated to conduct household surveys to show that the epidemics are not as bad as estimates suggest and to prove to the international community that the government is handling the epidemic. Other countries may be leery of showing that there is less of an HIV/AIDS problem because it could result in funding cuts for the country's AIDS-related programs. This controversy was reignited when India's National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) released new prevalence estimates in July, in cooperation with UNAIDS and WHO.
Following the news about the STEP trial, NIAID quickly announced that it would delay the start of its 8500-person Phase IIb test-of-concept trial, known as PAVE 100, which was scheduled to start in October. This trial tests a combination of two different vaccine candidates, a DNA and an Ad5 vector-based candidate, administered sequentially in what is known as a prime-boost combination. Both of these candidates were developed at the Vaccine Research Center (VRC), which is part of NIAID.
IAVI also delayed the start of its Phase II trial, known as V002, in Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, and Zambia with these same candidates, which was scheduled to begin enrolling volunteers just three days after the announcement from Merck.
Although these trials also involve candidates that use an Ad5 vector, "there are substantial differences," says Gary Nabel, director of the VRC. He says the VRC's strategy of using two different candidates in combination induces different types of immune responses. The candidates also contain different HIV immunogens.
The population of volunteers that are involved in the STEP study and the proposed PAVE 100 trial are also different. The STEP study volunteers were primarily men who have sex with men (MSM). In the South Africa Phambili trial, NIAID was testing MRKAd5 in a population where HIV is mainly transmitted through heterosexual sex. In this study over half of the volunteers recruited so far are women, compared to one third of the volunteers in the STEP trial. Researchers think that the route of infection—whether the virus is transmitted vaginally or rectally—may partly determine whether or not the immune responses induced by a vaccine candidate are capable of protecting against HIV infection (see VAX October 2003 Primer on Understanding Routes of Transmission). Like the Phambili study, the PAVE 100 trial will also involve a large number of women who are at risk of HIV infection through heterosexual sex.
New start dates for the PAVE 100 or V002 trials have not been decided yet, but Nabel says he is hopeful PAVE 100 will begin by early next year.
www.iavireport.org/vax/VAXSeptember20...
It’s reading time!

***The AdVac® technology is specifically designed to manage the problem of pre-existing immunity in humans against the most commonly used recombinant vaccine vector, adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad5), without compromising large-scale production capabilities or the immunogenic properties of Ad5. ***

Crucell grants Merck & Co., Inc. access to vaccine technology
Leiden, The Netherlands, September 10 2007 - Dutch biotechnology company Crucell N.V. (Euronext, NASDAQ: CRXL, Swiss Exchange: CRX) announced today that Merck & Co., Inc. (Whitehouse Station, NJ) has exercised an option for the exclusive use of Crucell's PER.C6® technology and an option for access to Crucell's AdVac® vaccine technology in two infectious disease areas.

Dr. Jaap Goudsmit, Crucell's Chief Scientific Officer said: "We are excited about this technology agreement which represents a further expansion of the relationship between our company and Merck. Crucell's vaccine technologies, PER.C6® and AdVac®, are increasingly used by the vaccine industry to develop important novel vaccines for infectious diseases. This agreement further broadens the number of disease areas in which our technologies are used."
investors.crucell.com/C/132631/PR/200...

Merck & Co., Inc. and Crucell Sign Cross-licensing Agreement on Vaccine Production Technology
Leiden, the Netherlands, December 27, 2006
investors.crucell.com/C/132631/PR/200...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd...

About AdVac® technology and Ad35
AdVac® technology is a vaccine technology developed by Crucell and is considered to play an important role in the fight against emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, and in biodefense. The technology supports the practice of inserting genetic material from the disease-causing virus or parasite into a 'vehicle' called a vector, which then delivers the immunogenic material directly to the immune system. Most vectors are based on an adenovirus, such as the virus that causes the common cold. The AdVac® technology is specifically designed to manage the problem of pre-existing immunity in humans against the most commonly used recombinant vaccine vector, adenovirus serotype 5 (Ad5), without compromising large-scale production capabilities or the immunogenic properties of Ad5. AdVac® technology is based on adenovirus vectors that do not regularly occur in the human population, such as Ad35. In contrast to the AdVac® vectors, antibodies to Ad5 are widespread among people of all ages and are known to lower the immune response to Ad5-based vaccines, thereby impairing the efficacy of these vaccines. All vaccine candidates based on AdVac® are produced using Crucell's PER.C6® production technology.
www.aeras.org/news/CrucellPhaseI.html
www.aeras.org/news/Crucell-Aeras-SATV...
medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?r...
www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/trial/...
Dr Jaap Goudsmit, CSO presents at Symposium - Combating the "Big Three" Diseases: AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Tokyo, Japan)
www.companywebcast.nl/webcast//player...

www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=...
www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=...
www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=...
www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=...

AIDS Vaccine: Lack Of Planning On Vectors Risks Future Public Health Gains

Keith Alcorn, Tuesday, September 5, 2006

A lack of coordination in the international vaccine development field could jeopardise the implementation of a series of much needed new vaccines for developing countries, according to a leading virologist speaking last week at AIDS Vaccine’06 in Amsterdam. Professor Jaap Goudsmit of the University of Amsterdam warned that the current enthusiasm for using adenoviruses as vectors for various vaccines - including HIV - could sabotage the sequential introduction of vaccines for malaria, tuberculosis (TB
gogogoo
1
vervolg:

and HIV, especially if the wrong strains of adenovirus are used.

Viral vectors for vaccine delivery are being explored because it is not currently thought possible to deliver a live attenuated form of HIV as a vaccine in the way that some other viral diseases are countered.

Instead, researchers are using modified viruses such as pox viruses and adenoviruses to carry HIV genes that will stimulate an immune response. The most advanced vaccines, those under development by Merck and by the US government’s research programmes, are using adenoviruses or canary pox virus.

Adenoviruses, which cause common cold symptoms, are strong stimulators of immune responses and also strongly express the genes implanted into them. They can be delivered by a wide variety of routes, including orally or intranasally, and are easy to grow.

But viral vectors are not without their drawbacks. The problem with adenoviruses is that lots of people have immunity to types of adenovirus. Up to 80% of the population in some developing countries may have some degree of immunity to adenovirus type 5, the strain being used in the Merck vaccine. A second adenovirus-based vaccine, now in trials sponsored by the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, is being evaluated in a variety of populations to see whether pre-existing immunity makes any difference to response, and whether immunity to particular adenovirus `serotypes` has an effect on response.

Researchers at Harvard Medical School are currently pursuing a strategy to disguise adenovirus type 5 from the immune system by stripping out the antibody-targeted regions of the spikes on the adenovirus envelope and replacing them with similar sequences from a very rare form of adenovirus. Dan Barouch and colleagues reported earlier this year in Nature that this vector was successful in overcoming pre-existing adenovirus 5 immunity in animals.

However, Robin Isaacs of Merck says that human studies conducted so far with the company’s adenovirus-based vaccine have not shown any effect of pre-existing immunity on vaccine responses, even at very high adenovirus antibody titres.

Nevertheless, Professor Goudsmit warns that the current vogue for exploring adenovirus vectors may have another downside.

“In the vaccines field there are trends – at one time it was pox-based vectors, now it’s adenoviruses. We need to pay attention to the risk of vector fatigue – you cannot use the same vector for another vaccination.”

In particular, Professor Goudsmit is concerned by the potential for HIV, TB and malaria vaccines to interfere with one another. Researchers at the conference estimate that a vaccine against infant malaria might be achievable within five years and a TB vaccine within ten years.

Paradoxically the company in which Professor Goudsmit serves at Chief Scientific Officer, Crucell, is itself pursuing an adenovirus vector for a malaria vaccine, using the rare Ad35 serotype. Crucell is also being funded to develop a TB vaccine based on an Ad35 vector by the Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation, and its technology is also being used in the development of Merck’s Ad5-based vaccine. The company is also being funded to develop two adenovirus vectors – serotypes 11 and 35 – by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, using non-human primate-derived adenoviruses.

Isn’t it a bit late for the company’s own Chief Scientific Officer to be raising the alarm over an issue where his company sits right in the middle?

Crucell argues that its adenovirus-based vaccine efforts, like those of other research groups, are designed to identify rare serotypes and non-human primate adenoviruses that can be used to complement each other in the array of vaccines now in development for poverty-related communicable diseases.

But Crucell has another strategy too, it seems. The company recently bought Swiss-based Berna Biotech, where the emphasis of vaccine vector research has been on measles virus. Hussein Naim of Berna showed the AIDS Vaccine ’06 conference that even though measles virus is a common childhood vaccination, a recombinant measles virus serving as vector for a SARS vaccine was able to induce strong cellular immune responses in people with pre-existing immunity to measles virus at the background antibody titre found in the North American population.

The critical test for HIV vaccination will come in the two proof of concept phase IIb trials now being carried out with adenovirus-based vaccinations, but these studies will be unable to answer for the consequences of other adenovirus-based vaccines, such as the malaria vaccine already being explored by the US Naval Medical Research Center and the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, and the Walter Reed Army Institute malaria vaccine being developed in collaboration with Glaxo SmithKline.
www.aidsmap.com/en/news/4C2522D5-CE46...
Dan Barouch, associate professor of medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, has spent years evaluating different combinations of Ad serotypes to find the most immunogenic regimens. Barouch says Ad5 induces skewed immune responses in rhesus macaques, favoring CD8+ over CD4+ T cells as measured ELISPOT, and only a small number of cells that secrete?by interferon (IFN)- interleukin (IL)-2, a cytokine secreted by activated cytotoxic T cells. An Ad26 vector developed by Barouch and colleagues induces more IL-2-producing cells and overall more cells that secrete multiple cytokines, but Barouch admits that "we don't know for sure the meaning of these different functional cells."
He suggests the failure of Merck's Ad5 candidate could be a failure of the homologous prime-boost regimen and advocates testing different combinations of Ad serotypes, since they induce qualitatively different immune responses. "They [different serotypes of Ad] are probably as different as two other viral vectors altogether," he says.
In Barouch's studies with rhesus macaques, the heterologous combination of Ad26/Ad5 induces around 10-fold more potent immune ELISPOT than Ad5/Ad5 regimens. The Ad26/Ad5?responses as measured by IFN- combination also controls viremia in vaccinated macaques challenged with SIVmac251. He thinks Ad5 makes a "good boosting vector because it can drive good CD8 responses," and this effect would be lost in the Ad5/Ad5 regimen if the majority of immune responses are against the vector. "Anti-vector immunity hasn't been quantified with subsequent injections of Ad5," says Barouch, but he is currently conducting several studies in nonhuman primates comparing different Ad serotypes using Ad5/Ad5 as a control. He says that the failure of the Merck candidate will impact the way future experiments are designed—"perhaps it could raise the bar for T cell-based vaccines."
Barouch also thinks other combinations should be studied more extensively in human trials. A Phase I trial with his Ad26 vector is expected to start before the end of the year and another Phase I study with a chimeric Ad5 vector, where regions of the Ad5 virus to which antibodies are directed are replaced with portions of Ad35, should begin early next year, pending regulatory approval.

Meer via:
crucell.yourbb.nl/viewtopic.php?t=402...
crucell.yourbb.nl/viewtopic.php?t=24&...
[verwijderd]
0
Goldman Sachs verhoogt zijn advies voor Crucell naar neutral van sell, omdat het fonds slechter dan de markt heeft gepresteerd, omdat negatieve katalysatoren op de korte termijn ontbreken, en omdat het aandeel is gedaald tot het koersdoel van EUR11. Het aandeel daalde met 38% sinds medio mei, toen de Amerikaanse zakenbank het biotechfonds op de verkooplijst zette. De bank voorziet veel nieuws over de pijplijn in de eerste helft van 2008, wat steun moet bieden aan de koers. Een zwaar griepseizoen kan de omzet van het griepvaccin stimuleren opstuwen. Het koersdoel blijft gehandhaafd op EUR11. Het aandeel staat woensdag rond 9.50 uur 0,5% hoger op EUR11,36

geen negatieve katalysatoren op de korte termijn !!!
Dr. acula
0
Of ze snappen het probleem niet bij Goldman Sachs
of ze weten al meer dan wij mogen weten.
[verwijderd]
1
quote:

Dr. acula schreef:

Of ze snappen het probleem niet bij Goldman Sachs
of ze weten al meer dan wij mogen weten.
Ik denk dat geloofwaardigheid zou worden aangetast als GS bij een 'sell' zou blijven als het koersdoel van 11 is bereikt. Een plotseling 'buy' zou ongeloofwaardig zijn. De neutral positie lijkt mij gezien de voorgaande 'sell' een vrij logische en vanzelfsprekende stap.
[verwijderd]
4
quote:

soniconer schreef:

Goldman Sachs verhoogt zijn advies voor Crucell naar neutral van sell, omdat het fonds slechter dan de markt heeft gepresteerd, omdat negatieve katalysatoren op de korte termijn ontbreken, en omdat het aandeel is gedaald tot het koersdoel van EUR11. Het aandeel daalde met 38% sinds medio mei, toen de Amerikaanse zakenbank het biotechfonds op de verkooplijst zette. De bank voorziet veel nieuws over de pijplijn in de eerste helft van 2008, wat steun moet bieden aan de koers. Een zwaar griepseizoen kan de omzet van het griepvaccin stimuleren opstuwen. Het koersdoel blijft gehandhaafd op EUR11. Het aandeel staat woensdag rond 9.50 uur 0,5% hoger op EUR11,36

geen negatieve katalysatoren op de korte termijn !!!
Onvoorstelbaar.
Mede door de manipulatie van Goldman Sachs zijn we nu naar de 11 gegaan, het koersdoel van GS.
Nu GS van 'sell' naar 'neutral' gaat, omsluiten wij Goldman Sachs in de armen??? NEVER!
Dat de mening van GS niet serieus werd genomen op dit forum wordt nu plots de mening van GS in de armen genomen doordat er nu wordt gesteld dat er geen negatieve katalysatoren zijn op de korte termijn. What the fuck is er dan veranderd vlg GS in de laatste maanden? Waren er dan eerst wel negatieve katalysatoren in de afgelopen maanden om de weg naar de 11 op te zoeken en nu we er zijn, zijn ze er niet meer....?
Ik snap er niks meer van...analisten zijn onbetrouwbaar. Positief, negatief doet er niet toe. De analisten van banken adviseren naar gelang hun eigen positie, zou jij het anders doen?
1 advies; volg niet de weg van een analist, maar vorm je eigen mening. nu en in de toekomst.

Welterusten en moge er duidelijkheid komen in deze onzekere en onduidelijke crucell tijd.
Ik wil weer duidelijkheid zien vanuit crucell dat er succesvolle vaccins worden ontwikkeld en geproduceerd gaan worden in de toekomst voor de mensheid. Slaap ze.
[verwijderd]
0
quote:

Japies schreef:

What the fuck is er dan veranderd vlg GS in de laatste maanden?
Wat er veranderd is, is de koers van het Crucell aandeel. Die was te hoog volgens GS, en nu is die correct volgens GS. Logisch dus dat het advies omoog gaat naar neutral.
Je kan het oneens geweest zijn met GS en je mag het oneens blijven, maar op zich is het wel een sluitend verhaal, en uit de motivering van GS is ook wel wat zinnigs te halen.
[verwijderd]
2
Gaan we nu een tweede keer leuteren over wel of geen mislukking van Ebola?
Natuurlijk is het programma vertraagd en vermoedenlijk kunnen we Ebola vergeten en misschien wel alle advac vaccins.( In ieder geval de eerstkomende 4 jaar.)
Dat weet ik al weken lang, waarom er dan maar weer over doorzeuren.
Een informatief forum, daar hebben we wat aan.
[verwijderd]
1
quote:

wpw schreef:

Gaan we nu een tweede keer leuteren over wel of geen mislukking van Ebola?
Natuurlijk is het programma vertraagd en vermoedenlijk kunnen we Ebola vergeten en misschien wel alle advac vaccins.( In ieder geval de eerstkomende 4 jaar.)
Dat weet ik al weken lang, waarom er dan maar weer over doorzeuren.
Een informatief forum, daar hebben we wat aan.
Je hebt op zich gelijk. Maar als jij dit vind en ik vind dit ook, waarom komt er dan niets vanuit crucell management qua berichtgeving?
Wat is erger? Het komt er toch een keer uit vroeg of laat. Als het crucell management haar vertrouwen niet wil verliezen en in de toekomst serieus wil blijven worden genomen is het aan te raden om met openheid de markt te benaderen.
Wordt dit niet gedaan, dan krijgt de koers mogelijk de grooste deuk die het kan oplopen; nl. het vertrouwen verdwijnt.
wilb52
0
nl. het vertrouwen verdwijnt.

Dat is allang weg bij vele beleggers , analisten .

Maar Antosof , maakt het nog bonter.
Dat Geely in sept gestopt was , vonden ze niet nodig om te melden.
Die mogen dus ook zo het gevang in!

[verwijderd]
0
Is Ebola voor de geldelijke uitkomsten van Crucell belangrijk??
NEE.
In een grijs verleden is gesuggereerd, dat de winstmarge op verkopen minstens 80% zou bedragen.
Wishfull thinking.
Vergelijk het met Quinvaxem.
Voor de Amerikaanse legerorder is geen verkooporganisatie nodig. Dus zal de winstmarge niet veel meer dan 40% zijn. Op een order van $ 50 miljoen is dat $ 20 miljoen ofwel € 13.5 miljoen, ruim € 0.20 per aandeel.
Financieel dus geen grote aderlating.
Wél speelt het emotioneel belang mee, maar is dat al niet grotendeels in de koers verdisconteerd??
Volgens mij wel.
[verwijderd]
1
quote:

Japies schreef:

Je hebt op zich gelijk. Maar als jij dit vind en ik vind dit ook, waarom komt er dan niets vanuit crucell management qua berichtgeving?
Wellicht zijn ze daar al druk mee bezig?
Dat is natuurlijk niet gemakkelijk want het kan al heel snel verkeerd uitgelegd worden.
Mischien is het slim om wat meer los te laten over de nieuwe Advac deal met Merck ?

[verwijderd]
1
quote:

wpw schreef:

[quote=Japies]
Je hebt op zich gelijk. Maar als jij dit vind en ik vind dit ook, waarom komt er dan niets vanuit crucell management qua berichtgeving?[/quote]

Wellicht zijn ze daar al druk mee bezig?
Dat is natuurlijk niet gemakkelijk want het kan al heel snel verkeerd uitgelegd worden.
Mischien is het slim om wat meer los te laten over de nieuwe Advac deal met Merck ?
Daar zijn ze echt niet mee bezig wpw, immers dit nieuws is nu al weken bekend en ondertussen zijn we tevens euro's na de kwartaalcijfers gezakt.
In de emails vanuit de persvoorlichting worden de uitspraken vanuit een onafhankelijke derde genaamd NIH ontkend. Tuurlijk het is gissen wie gelijk heeft, maar je kan wel concluderen dat beide uitspraken haaks op elkaar staan. Op 12 december valt er een beslissing en ik denk dat tot die datum crucell positief zich naar buiten toe uit, immers er is nog geen definitief besluit. Dit klinkt logisch alleen de vraag resteert hoe reeel dit is.....
Voor mij is het ook gissen hoor, want ook mijn conclusies zijn voorbarig, ik probeer alleen risico's versus opportunities in te schatten met de kennis die ik heb en hier via forums wordt gedeeld door anderen.
Mijn conclusie is bekend en zal ik niet verder herhalen.
[verwijderd]
0
Ebola, HIV, Ad5 of -35, het zou natuurlijk zijn als het eens lukte, maar is het ook per se nodig, of alleen maar een van vele mogelijke extraatjes bovenop een toch al renderend Crucell?
86 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 » | Laatste
Aantal posts per pagina:  20 50 100 | Omhoog ↑

Meedoen aan de discussie?

Word nu gratis lid of log in met uw e-mailadres en wachtwoord.

Direct naar Forum

Markt vandaag

AEX 870,27 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
AMX 916,54 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
ASCX 1.190,79 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
BEL 20 3.857,94 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
Germany40^ 17.931,00 +13,72 +0,08% 25 apr
US30^ 38.124,13 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
US500^ 5.044,94 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
Nasd100^ 17.428,55 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
Japan225^ 37.725,14 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
WTI 83,75 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
Brent 87,91 0,00 0,00% 25 apr
EUR/USD 1,0726 -0,0003 -0,03% 07:31
BTC/USD 64.303,10 +323,24 +0,51% 02:59
Gold spot 2.336,19 +4,16 +0,18% 07:31
#/^ Index indications calculated real time, zie disclaimer
HOGE RENDEMENTEN OP DE IEX-MODELPORTEFEUILLES > WORD NU ABONNEE EN PROFITEER VAN MAAR LIEFST 67% KORTING!

Stijgers & Dalers

Stijgers Laatst +/- % tijd
ABN AMRO BANK N.V. 15,875 0,000 0,00% 25 apr
ADYEN NV 1.157,000 0,000 0,00% 25 apr
Aegon 5,728 0,000 0,00% 25 apr
Dalers Laatst +/- % tijd
ABN AMRO BANK N.V. 15,875 0,000 0,00% 25 apr
ADYEN NV 1.157,000 0,000 0,00% 25 apr
Aegon 5,728 0,000 0,00% 25 apr

EU stocks, real time, by Cboe Europe Ltd.; Other, Euronext & US stocks by NYSE & Cboe BZX Exchange, 15 min. delayed
#/^ Index indications calculated real time, zie disclaimer, streaming powered by: Infront