The GLG Pharma STAT Blog

Richard Gabriel

Recent Posts

Why are STAT3 Inhibitors Important in Cancer Therapy?

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Sat, Oct 11, 2014 @ 09:43 AM

STAT3 inhibitors are important agents for cancer therapy. STAT is an acronym for Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription. STAT is a protein that is mostly found in the cell cytoplasm and is activated by upstream specific signals. It is first activated (phosphorylated by adding phosphorous to the protein to form p-STAT3), it then dimerizes (two p-STAT molecules bind together) and then it crosses the nuclear membrane, binds to the nuclear DNA and triggers a cascade of subsequent reactions that induces the cell to grow or die, a process called apoptosis. P-STAT3 is deactivated by the removal of phosphorous. In a normal cell this process turns on and off like a turn signal and lasts less than two hours. In cancer, the process remains on and cells don’t die, they continue to divide. 

There are seven STATs, each has a specific role in various cell functions. The one that interests GLG the most at this time is STAT3. As it turns out, measuring the p-STAT3 in a cancer cell tells the physician something really important, that this disease is in a run-away state of exponential growth rates. The molecule; p-STAT3, plays also a major role in acquired resistance to several anticancer therapies.   

In our normal tissues, STAT3 is what the scientists call a ‘highly conserved’ mechanism and is only produced and turned on when it is time for the cell to divide. In cancer, p-STAT3 is a non-stop mechanism. In diseases like esophageal cancer, multiple myeloma, pancreatic cancer, glioma blastoma, liver cancer, some lung cancers and triple negative breast cancer, p-STAT3 is present in approximately 65% of the tumors.

STAT3, Cancer Stem Cells, Cancer

Not a pleasant thought for someone possibly with breast cancer.  

The good news is that this abnormal process can be stopped and GLG is in a race against the clock. GLG’s compounds (STAT3 inhibitors), inhibit p-STAT3 and stop cancer cell proliferation. GLG’s inhibitors target the abnormal proliferation process at any of three different points of attack:

 1. Phosphorylation

 2. Dimerization

 3. DNA Binding

 Here is a cartoon we borrowed to help explain how our inhibitors of p-STAT3 work:




The arrows show where our molecules stop the abnormal proliferation.

  • Our phosphorylation (first two arrows) inhibitor is called GLG-101
  • We have 2 dimerization inhibitors (second arrow from the top) GLG-202 and GLG-302. GLG-302 is currently in the NCI’s Prevent Cancer program.
  • Our third inhibitor (third arrow from the top) is called GLG-801 and it is currently undergoing Phase 2 clinical trials in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and has already demonstrated that in patients, it turns off p-STAT3. It is a repurposed drug, meaning that we can seek approval in cancer treatment under the FDA’s 505(b)(2) regulations (shorter and less costly to market approach sanctioned by the FDA). 

The 505(b)(2) application also means that the price of the new product, unless reformulated to deliver it to the patient in a more efficient delivery formulation, will have margins similar to the operating margins achieved by generic companies.  

What’s even more startling is that in the laboratory GLG-302 has been shown to reverse chemotherapy resistance in over 9 commercial anti-cancer drugs and across 10 different types of cancer!

9 Commercial Anti-Cancer Drugs Developing Resistance in Patients 

  • Bortezomib                                $2.8 billion
  • Cetuximab                                 $703 million
  • Cisplatin                                    $2.0 billion
  • Doxorubicin                               $450 million
  • Docetaxel                                  $1.5 billion
  • Paclitaxel                                   $1.0 billion
  • Tamoxifen                                  $140 million
  • Vemurafenib                               $675 million
  • Vorinostat                                   $150 million

Total Sales of Drugs whose  Resistance can be Reversed by GLG-302: ~$8.4 billion











                                                                   Cancer types that have been found to develop acquired resistance to chemotherapy are:

  1. Breast (Triple Negative)
  2. Liver
  3. Head & Neck
  4. Melanoma
  5. Multiple Myeloma
  6. Ovary
  7. Urinary Bladder
  8. CTCL (cutaneous T cell lymphoma)
  9. GIST (gastrointestinal stromal tumor)
  10. Esophageal

By reversing the acquired resistance to chemotherapy, with our GLG-302 p-STAT3 inhibitor, the cancer cells once again become susceptible to chemotherapy treatment and are killed. We have seen this work reported in multiple independent laboratories across the world and across the listed cancers. If a cancer cell does not show p-STAT3 upregulation, then our compounds will not benefit the patient. If however the p-STAT3 is elevated, we could improve patient outcomes!

Want to find out more about our Company? Are you a qualified investor? Sign up at Poliwogg. Follow us as we will post more information on our website. Thank you for your time and consideration!

Poliwogg, GLG Pharma


Richard Gabriel, BS, MBA


GLG Pharma, LLC


GLG Pharma, SAS

Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3, STAT3 inhibitors, Cancer, Cancer Therapy, Cancer Stem Cells, Chemotherapy

Who is Your Patient Advocate?

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Tue, Jun 03, 2014 @ 01:54 PM

Where is Healthcare Today for Cancer Patients? Who is your advocate?

Patient advocacy is all about having a representative voice in clinical treatment. For Stage 4 cancer patients, the following excerpt is just one example of where clinical care is being directed by groups that are looking to minimize patient treatment opportunities. Bush, who is still a young man, might think differently if he is faced with a life threatening illness. Kierkegaard called it in existential religious terms; the ‘Leap to Faith’ that often occurs for an individual at the death of a parent, spouse, and/or a child or when an individual is faced with imminent death.  You can hear Bush's comments on: 

Jonathan bush of Athena Health. Dec 20, 2013 07:26AM on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” 

"If you cut out stage 4 cancer care, because most interventions shorten your life and makes you more miserable. Cut out all the chronic care [insurance coverage] and offer it [insurance] at $300 and then everything else is an add-on"..." [This quote is excerpted from Bush’s comments on the Affordable Health Care program and insurance and the state of health care in the United States; from his perspective.] 

Jonathan S. Bush (born March 10, 1969) is the co-founder, Chief Executive Officer, and President of Athena Health; a Watertown, Massachusetts based health care technology company founded in 1997.  In 2000, Bush raised more than $10M in venture capital funding to support Athena Health, which launched a successful IPO in 2007. Before founding Athena Health, Bush served as an associate of J. Bush & Company, Inc. and as a consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton, where he was a member of its Managed Care Strategy Group. Bush holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Wesleyan University and a master’s degree in business administration from Harvard University.  In 1991, during "Operation Desert Storm", Bush served as a Combat Medic in the rank of Private First Class. He is the son of Jonathan Bush, cousin of former U.S. President George W. Bush, nephew of U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and brother of television presenter Billy Bush. Athena Healthcare highlights options for physicians on maximizing reduction in health care costs by recommending alternative treatment options. Today, Athena Health has a market cap of over $1.8 billion dollars. 

While Bush’s views on health care are not universal, the view does highlight what many healthcare pundits say is endemic with the industry, a parsimonious and conservative view of how patients should be treated and how much money should be allocated for their treatment. Groups like Kaiser Permanente offer My Doctor web site filled with information on cancer treatment options as just one example of patient access to medical information. When a patient is fighting for their life; more information and top notch treatment or access to new therapies in clinical trials are sometimes what can make the difference. But someone needs to pay for that treatment and this is where the battle lines have been drawn. Cost versus treatment and access to treatment. Rich patient advocacy groups have been in existence for some time. A good example is ‘Best Doctors’; offers supreme ‘concierge’ services for a price. Clearly, “Best Doctors” carry premiums and services that are outside of the Affordable Care Act health care costs and the budgets of most families. Only 23% of their clientele are in the US, all the rest are outside of the US. They are a first rate organization and bring real value to the patients who can pay but that isn’t a model that is supported by the Affordable Care Act and is more in line with the rich will survive, the rest of us, well we have to make do with less. 

While cost savings are important to health care treatment, parsing out money for ‘approved’ and ‘unapproved’ conditions is tantamount to social and economic status engineering where only the wealthy can get the treatment they need and that treatment is only reserved for those patients that can afford it or have access to the networks of professional medical groups that can provide those services to the selected few. 

Also contributing to the lack of good and potentially new therapies for Stage IV cancer patients that could take a patient out of treatment and back into remission is the lack of funding for new therapies. The Affordable Care Act and the Jobs Act combined have created a potential new source of investment capital that is now available for startup companies. Patient advocacy groups can now raise capital using the Jobs Act Regulation D to raise sufficient amounts of capital to make FOR PROFIT investments in startup technologies. 

How Does the Jobs Act – Regulation D 506(c) Work? 

Regulation D 506(C) is an unlimited amount of capital with a limit of 2,500 shareholder/investors until reporting to the SEC regularly (quarterly and with annual audited financials) are required by law. The other restriction is that only persons or families (spouse) with combined incomes over a $300,000 or a net worth, excluding primary residence, of over $1.0MM, qualify as investors under Regulation D 506 (C). According to recent information there are about 8 million people in the US that qualify under SEC rules as “qualified investors” but a vast majority of them either don’t know that they qualify, aren’t interested in qualifying or have never invested in startup companies. It is estimated that less than 500,000 individuals or family units do this kind of private equity investing today. A part of this investing group is now known as ‘angel’ investors, gathering in groups of wealthy individuals and pooling their collective resources to raise initial capital for a startup. The problem with the angel groups today is that the capital initially invested in the drug area is a very small amount of the capital needed to advance a therapy or treatment to human clinical trials. Angel investments are typically in the $1-$3MM range and for that investment could consume up to 40% of the initial equity in a startup company. 

Patient advocacy groups can also organize under an investment moniker to raise capital as a “for profit” entity under the “not for profit” arm of their advocacy groups and begin investment in startup technologies and companies. Using Regulation 506, patient advocacy groups can behave the same way that some venture capital groups have operated for years, using Regulation D as the route of raising new capital for their funds (from qualified rich donors). Patient advocacy groups for example can use a part of their funds to support promising research at their favorite institutions (not for profit function), augmenting National Institutes of Health sponsoring of research. This one-two punch research support of NIH coupled with Not-for-profit grants provides the catalyst for new ideas, concepts and therapies through understanding of primary biological, chemical, structural and mathematical data and systems. In addition, a portion of their raised investment capital (the for profit advocacy group) can be used to invest in new therapies from discovery through New Drug Application approval by the US FDA or other similar regulatory body across the globe.

What Makes a Good Investment Target? 

The only investment target that we know something about is our own development pipeline and we will use this opportunity to provide an example of why a pipeline approach to drug development is a risk lowering strategy; as it is used by the well-financed and operating pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and often ignored as a strategy for a startup by venture capital. It doesn’t have to be ignored by investors. The restriction of direct investment in startup companies and technologies if you qualify as an investment advocacy group or as a family or individual has been streamlined by the Jobs Act. The good news is that startup valuations in health care are still very low and have not hit the stratospheric pricing for pre-IPO stocks such as DropBox (valued at $10 billion prior to an IPO), a cloud based file sharing company. Most biotech startups are priced in the $10 to $20 million pre-money if they don’t have revenues, if they build revenues or close transactions; the valuation rises but not exponentially, rather more rationally. Usually when a startup gets acquired by a larger company, the valuations are often exponentially increased as pharma companies tend to price in future earnings of the acquired company in a buyout.

According to Life Science Nation (LSN) and its CEO and founder, Dennis Ford “it’s raining investors” in early stage clinical development projects ( and here are two graphs extracted from his blog to highlight the interest expressed by investors who are signed up with LSN. 

Followed by a chart that is the result of one-on-one interviews by LSN staff with the investor group highlighted above:

Lifescience Blog


LifeScience 2

This can be good news for startup companies that have pipelines of development products and projects for at-risk patient populations. Reducing risk in early stage development projects in a startup company are crucial to moving a company forward, creating increase valuations for the early investors and completing strategic partnerships to help fill out the gaps in drug development, reducing risk and hopefully producing positive clinical product data. 

Diversity of Revenue Streams! 

When considering an investment in a biotech, early pharma or a lifescience startup; take a look at the product life cycles and depth of product line diversity within the company. In GLG Pharma’s case, we are already internationally diverse. We are negotiating a strategic partnership for drug development and approval of our lead product GLG-302, a p-STAT3 inhibitor that reverses Stage 4 chemotherapy resistant tumors and may allow for additional chemotherapy treatment. Market segmentation by regional partners is a good way to diversify risk and in our case, it provides us with a reliable partner in another part of the world that we would be unlikely to go to in the very near future. Providing your partners with access to your equity, product lines and development pipelines, creates meaningful incentives for shareholder risk reduction. 

An additional deal is underway in Europe, particularly in France where GLG Pharma, SAS is based. The SAS company will license an approved therapy treatment for actinic keratosis (precursor to skin cancer) and sell into France. Additionally, GLG-801, 302 and 202 are being formulated into patent protected formulations for dermatological applications. Our partner in the EU will formulate GMP material, check stability and provide samples to us for early proof of concept treatment under a physician’s Investigational New Drug program. Once proof of concept data confirms our scientific hypothesis, that the drug as a p-STAT3 inhibitor will work, then full clinical development will begin. First approval will be in Europe and the two companies will partner the drugs across the globe. GLG Pharma, SAS retains rights for France; our partner has rights for Germany, Austria, and Swiss speaking Switzerland, Japan and the UK. All other countries are partnered with a 50-50 split of profits. 

GLG-801 is a repurposed drug (already approved in another indication) that will have a faster time to market with the new skin formulation. The next product will be GLG-302, a New Chemical Entity. Following closely behind GLG-302 will be GLG-202 a rationally designed, composition of matter drug candidate. In addition, GLG Pharma has a diagnostic to monitor p-STAT3 during clinical and following drug approvals. Combining drug therapy and p-STAT3 diagnostic as well as other clinical marker monitoring, can perhaps reverse drug resistant tumor cells and make them more vulnerable to additional chemotherapy treatment! 

The GLG Pharma Pipeline 

Graphically we can represent the pipeline several ways:

STAT3 inhibitor pipeline


Diversifying a product pipeline across different diseases is also a way of reducing risk.

STAT3 Inhibitors


In addition, combining the strategy of ready to go to market products helps the company become an integrated company that has all the elements of a larger, fully funded pharmaceutical or biotech company with global initiatives and partners. Developing products within the treatment market for diseases is a global team effort, requiring a cross section of expertise usually not found in one single startup management team. While the GLG team has over 110 years of combined experience and has 15 approved drugs and 30+ diagnostics in the market, the core team still requires additional team members to advance its risk reduction strategy. Want to learn more about making a difference? Go to Poliwogg or visit our web site at GLG Pharma. We’ll also be at the International Bio Conference in San Diego partnering away!

Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3, STAT 3 inhibitors, STAT3 cancer, STAT3 inhibitors, Cancer

The Entrepreneur's Real Valley of Death

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Thu, Apr 10, 2014 @ 02:00 PM

It’s always good to take a lesson from history but it is also good to keep in mind that arm-chair quarterbacking a play doesn’t address the real world problems of the next play. Since none of us can see into the future, our best analytical tools can only look at charts and graphs and project or predict that the chart will continue in the same direction or that the graph line doesn’t start plummeting downward. There are a number of technical and sophisticated mathematical algorithms that are used by stock trading firms that help investors of all sizes to maximize their returns. Up and down dramatic swings always tell us something about what could happen or what might happen next. The upward or downward motion of indicators also can tell something about a market such as valuation, either over or under. For example, right after 9/11 the internet bubble burst which was quickly followed up with the Biotech/Pharma/Lifesciences burst bubble. Valuations of public and private companies in both sectors plummeted.

I remember being at a Venture Fund conference in 2004 in New York City and the key note speaker said to the general audience that ‘… it didn’t matter the depth of investment, intellectual property or management team, the valuation of any startup is $5MM…’ peddle forward to the last Angel Investment conference I went to in Boston in 2013 and the key note speaker said ‘…it doesn’t matter what you think your company and technology is worth, we (Angels) take a minimum of 40% of your equity for $2 million’. I had the urge to punch the guy, just to teach him a lesson after he proudly followed it with ‘….one of our Angels came in to help add equity to the balance sheet and got a 9x return on $4 million in less than 6 weeks’. After I asked him what the founder’s got and how much they owned of the acquisition it turned out to be less than 11% split between two guys, which were fired after the acquisition and had to go out and get jobs! That scenario was last spring, nearly one year ago. While I don’t begrudge investors making money the argument of the rising waters floats all boats is quite frankly a pile of steaming manure. Valuations are still at the bottom and while they are rising, it’s not enough to offset the high failure rates of drug development in our industry.

So looking at the chart there was an uptick just prior to the crash in 2000 and there was also an uptick when the hedge funds crisis and the largest recession since the great depression (1929) in 2007 started. But starting in the first quarter of 2013 the zero line was crossed, meaning that VC’s were now going to make a lot of money. So now the upward climb of the tracking information looks like the North Slope of the last part of the climb at Mount Everest, so it is logical to assume that there is a top and that there will be a correction. How far, how deep and when it will occur? Who knows? I don’t.

What else does this dramatic step up in valuation increase tell us? The message to entrepreneurs might be to fight a little harder for your equity valuations but then again, most of the entrepreneurs that I know are still in the mind set of ‘give me money at any valuation’. So are the assets of a startup, which include people, are those assets undervalued and are the returns on investment over the top for the investors? Will valuations catch up with the market forces? The private capital market indexes seem to be doing so since 2013 and rather quickly. Will this translate to the Lifesciences industry? Slowly but deliberately. Eventually, the APP Bubble will deflate and all the shares that were priced into the stratosphere will find the other side of Mount Everest, the downside but then again, look at Google, look at Facebook. Looking at SharePost’s tracking of “after financed VC companies” that qualified investors can now invest in and do it through the recent announcement by the NASDAQ and the broker-dealer SharePost. One example is DropBox which now has a pre-IPO market capitalization of $9 billion. How many Lifescience companies that list on the US exchanges today have public market valuations over $9 billion? Not many. And that is the crux of the problem of our industry and the start-up’s that feed that industry and take ‘unnecessary risks’.

There are VC firms that have made a lot of money during the interim period, some of them went to China, India and Latin America, exporting US, UK and EU technologies, services, manufacturing and re-introducing those products and services back into their own economies and markets. Some of them were successful in selling their investments to pharma and biotech giants. And some of them and the companies that they funded, disappeared. Technology, jobs and opportunities lost. Neither Aspirin nor any approved antibiotics are made in the US any longer and haven’t been for quite some time. All of it outsourced.

The true picture of what happened during the ‘real valley of death’ in the life blood of the industry, capital can be seen below:

Link to glgpharma


The Valley of Death

Since January, 2014 there were 36 IPO’s from venture backed companies, 24 of them were biotech companies. The 36 companies raised $3.3 billion or about $83MM average with the highest being a medical software product company that will list on the NYSE Euronext with a high end raise of $200+MM. We have not seen this kind of IPO activity since the year 2000 in our industry and of course, everyone is now crying ‘Biotech Bubble’. Is it true? Is this another Biotech Bubble soon to burst? Only time will tell but if enough analysts and VC’s continue to vocalize the concept, a crash will surely happen. When, well that’s anyone’s guess. What will keep the crash from happening are the consistent and constant revenue increases and approvals of drugs for diseases.

So with all the improvements in drug development strategies have the odds yet improved? A recent study by Michael Hay et al stated:

“The study is the largest and most recent of its kind, examining success rates of 835 drug developers, including biotech companies as well as specialty and large pharmaceutical firms from 2003 to 2011. Success rates for over 7,300 independent drug development paths are analyzed by clinical phase, molecule type, disease area and lead versus non-lead indication status . . . Unlike many previous studies that reported clinical development success rates for large pharmaceutical companies, this study provides a benchmark for the broader drug development industry by including small public and private biotech companies and specialty pharmaceutical firms. The aim is to incorporate data from a wider range of clinical development organizations, as well as drug modalities and targets. . .

To illustrate the importance of using all indications to determine success rates, consider this scenario. An antibody is developed in four cancer indications, and all four indications transition successfully from phase 1 to phase 3, but three fail in phase 3 and only one succeeds in gaining FDA approval. Many prior studies reported this as 100% success, whereas our study differentiates the results as 25% success for all indications, and 100% success for the lead indication. Considering the cost and time spent on the three failed phase 3 indications, we believe including all 'development paths' more accurately reflects success and R&D productivity in drug development.” (Nature Biotechnology Hay, M. et al Nature Biotechnology 32, 40–51(2014) doi:10.1038/nbt.2786 Published online 09 January 2014)

Pictorially, our industry looks like this:

nbt.2786 F1 DrugSuccess resized 600

nbt.2786 F2 Drug Success resized 600

nbt.2786 F3 Drug Success resized 600

What does this say about the sudden boom in IPO’s? Since 2011, the improvement in drug approval success would not be great enough to justify the sudden resurgence of a market that has perhaps moved the approval pipeline stats up about 1-2% from the 1980-2000’s which was reported to hover at the 9-10% range (2011 we are in the 10-15% range the way I read the data). There is a danger though in over analyzing cumulative data across multiple diseases, it tends to blur the real progress that is often being made in a particular area of disease treatment. Blurring the disease categories with other areas that have always been notoriously difficult such as anything in the neural area, i.e. Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Bipolar and Schizophrenia and let’s not forget Migraines, brings the overall industry down! Part of the higher failure rate is due to the lack of capital in the industry overall. VC’s abandoned the biotech/pharma/Lifescience space by the droves. So not only was it a death valley for return of investment capital after the last Biotech Bubble in 2000 burst, the rate of drug approval has gotten harder and the FDA and EMA are demanding more data, more information, more clinical trials and all this translates to higher risk, higher cost for any company when capital is short to non-existent.

Pharma companies and large Biotech’s that have lots of cash and the right talent and risk taking, reduce their risk by spreading across multiple drugs in development with multiple markers or targets that can be validated and might be unique. But the industry in the large Pharma and Biotech area has often proven itself to follow the Lemming mentality and our intrepid Authors state:

“Factors contributing to lower success rates found in this study include the large number of small biotech companies represented in the data, more recent time frame (2003–2011) and higher regulatory hurdles for new drugs. Small biotech companies tend to develop riskier, less validated drug classes and targets, and are more likely to have less experienced development teams and fewer resources than large pharmaceutical corporations. The past nine-year period has been a time of increased clinical trial cost and complexity for all drug development sponsors, and this likely contributes to the lower success rates than previous periods. In addition, an increasing number of diseases have higher scientific and regulatory hurdles as the standard of care has improved over the past decade.”

So in our industry we have heard much about the ‘Valley of Death’ coupled with living in the land of ‘Nosferatu’. It is so bad in our industry that the Government has recognized the problem and is attempting to provide funding and funding encouragement once a product or technology has a ‘proof of concept’. The Valley of Death is described as that space in between validation of a discovery (a pre-clinical state) where a compound is selected for advancement into clinical development and Phase 2 human clinical trials. The concept is that once a product reaches Phase 2 clinical trials, the investment community, the VC’s would then join in and fund the advancement of the products. The Valley of Death has always been there in drug development, large and small companies’ management must decide on which compound to advance into clinical development. A risky decision that can have dire consequences if the product fails in Phase 3 or the FDA and/or EMA agencies decide the drug is not efficacious or too toxic for the patient population.

At GLG we bring years of experience in selecting drugs and helping them get through the clinical development and approval process. We have over 15 approved drugs and nearly 30 diagnostics and several over the counter products that we all individually or as a team, have helped discover, develop and get approved. Sometimes the best drug is not always the one that has the lowest binding affinity, why? Well the drug might be great binding in vitro and in vivo models that are based around cell and animal model technology but have awful human clinical trial results. A good bio distribution, low toxicity, good efficacy is what everyone is searching for in our industry (along with a host of other very important characteristics etc.). So when you have a drug that has been tested across multiple animal models in different diseases and continues to knock out the disease target that is based on a biological marker, it probably will make it through clinical development and into the market. However, there are no guarantees and the risks are high but the sales often sky rocket like a new consumer device or product. Driving valuations of Biotech companies into the stratosphere, maybe even as high as Drop Box’s $9 Billion?

Also, want to learn more about new financing models? Contact Poliwogg by clicking the picture link below!


Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3

The New Way to Fund Biotech/Pharma/Lifescience Startups?

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Sat, Mar 01, 2014 @ 03:56 PM

Where is all the money?

If you are a company starting a 160 character limited social media communications product or an app to take money away from Verizon, AT&T and Sprint as well as all the piratical foreign phone services that cream you for many more dollars than the service are actually worth. For these social media and software app companies, investments is not a problem; or let’s say, that raising the money is less of a problem when compared to Lifescience startups current financial woes. If you’re a biotech/pharma/Lifesciences company startup, the odds of finding investment capital are better by playing the lottery in your home state. Steve Burrill a longtime supporter and follower of the Lifesciences industry commented at the Moffitt Cancer Center annual meeting for startups and technology, as the key note speaker that “…only 1 out of 150 startups receive funding from Venture Capital.” Another veteran of VC funding of sorts was involved with J&J’s Venture fund and commented that over 99.9% of the plans submitted to J&J venture funds were rejected out of hand. So far, the odds according to many observers; stack up against the formation and funding of a drug development company but there is hope and maybe a new route is here:

  • SBIR/STTR (this isn’t new) – While the NIH shows across different agencies an awarding of grants in the 15%+ average, it only reflects the number of applications that are reviewed versus awarded and not the number of applications submitted to the various agencies. Many applications aren’t even reviewed and rejected out of hand. No explanation for rejection is available, just rejection. Here’s a paper that reviews some of this for you. If you want to get an understanding of how the system works, Tony Fauci’s NIAID (National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) gives a little tutorial. I’m still confused.
  • Government sponsored research on selected technologies and products. This is an up and coming area for the NIH and programs at various agencies select products across all diseases for funding. The catch is that none of the funding comes to the company directly but is rather paid out to third party providers to advance the technology or a product to the proof of concept stage or actual FDA application. Other resources may then become available such as matching grant funds and other incentives to get investors to the table. A good example is NCI’s Prevent Cancer Program. GLG’s product GLG-302 has been selected for this program. Check out your institution at the NIH where your technology can have a benefit to a patient population and see if they have such a program. If the NCI funds GLG-302 to its end point, which is an IND (Investigational New Drug Application) application to the FDA for long term cancer prevention therapy with our product, it’s worth $3.5-$4.5MM to the company, that the NCI will pay directly to 3rd party providers to accumulate the necessary data for the IND application. For GLG Pharma this is a miracle and we are so grateful to the NCI and the independent reviewer researchers that approved our submission. For women with breast cancer, this product could save their lives. The NCI wins, the taxpayer wins, the patient wins and we get a drug to market, so our investors will win.
  • Local, State and friends of the company money. This also includes your friends and family money. GLG has had lots of help here and personally, I will always be eternally grateful for all their support. So a quick overview and you can look for similar organizations in your area. We got support from the Town of Jupiter, FL for locating our business there and promising to stay there, which we intend to do!  FICR (Florida Institute Commercialization of Public Research) and organization committed to helping fledgling companies advance Florida created technology (our technology comes from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL) in the State of Florida. Along with Paragon Foundation actively supporting local Dade County businesses and we very much needed their help! Along with the local bank, Seacoast National Bank, that has stepped in to help support the Town of Jupiter and GLG. Our technology came from the Moffitt Cancer Center and University of Central Florida plus Yale University and the City of Hope Hospital, all working under an NCI Grant that funded the breakthrough technology of STAT3 inhibition diagnostic and drug treatment program. When our first drug begins to treat cancer or a proliferative disease, the patients will be the first to win and that couldn’t have happened if the NIH hadn’t supported the research at the Moffitt, Yale, City of Hope and UCF. These organizations will also be winners as well as collectively they own about 20% of equity and have royalties and milestone payments as the licensed technology advances. Bottom line, it takes many more people to make a drug company successful. Drug development is a team business and a company and its management as well as its investors, need to be determined and be willing to accept problems along the way and find ways to solve those problems. In that respect, drug development is no different than the teams that build the apps, Twitter, Facebook or Google. It just takes longer and it costs more. Lives are at stake in drug development and that’s the difference.
  • Crowd Funding. There are three aspects to Crowd Funding that can be used to change the face of funding for Biotech/Pharma/Lifescience companies. The first is the ‘not for profit’ (NFP) aspect of Crowd Funding, so how could this be used to benefit the development of new therapies? Groups of patients or patient interest groups could in effect under the not for profit moniker raise capital through donations to complete clinical trials or pre-clinical trials for targeted therapies and treatments. This vehicle could operate under the same principles as the NIH’s Prevent Cancer Program by first highlighting the goals and objectives of the funding and second by contracting the third parties to complete the work on behalf of the NFP with the information given to the chosen company or technology. Group associations such as the Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation (PKD) can do this but on a very small scale. The National Breast Cancer Foundation does this but it’s mostly focused on providing funds to breakthrough research at Universities and Medical Centers and not the actual Development in ‘Research and Development’. If such a group were formed on Razoo or Charidy or Indiegogo or Rockethub or one of the other sites outlined by CrowdCrux. The company receiving these funds indirectly, could also agree to give back to the community by providing a portion of the profits to further fuel drug development or provide funds to foundations such as the PKD. The company could also have advocacy groups that are part of the annual review of technologies and accomplishments. For companies focused on cures and diagnostics for diseases, this shouldn’t be a problem. Razoo claims that over 90,000 charities have raised $200 million dollars using their site.
  • Crowd Funding for the public. The SEC for Crowd Funding has yet to complete the written guidelines for ordinary investors so that they can invest in startup companies or private offerings in private companies. The draft documents are available at the SEC site: Crowd Funding. “Under the proposed rules:
  1. A company would be able to raise a maximum aggregate amount of $1 million through crowdfunding offerings in a 12-month period.
  2. Investors, over the course of a 12-month period, would be permitted to invest up to:
  3. $2,000 or 5 percent of their annual income or net worth, whichever is greater, if both their annual income and net worth are less than $100,000.
  4. 10 percent of their annual income or net worth, whichever is greater, if either their annual income or net worth is equal to or more than $100,000.  During the 12-month period, these investors would not be able to purchase more than $100,000 of securities through crowdfunding.

Certain companies would not be eligible to use the crowdfunding exemption.  Ineligible companies include non-U.S. companies, companies that already are SEC reporting companies, certain investment companies, companies that are disqualified under the proposed disqualification rules, companies that have failed to comply with the annual reporting requirements in the proposed rules, and companies that have no specific business plan or have indicated their business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies.

As mandated by Title III of the JOBS Act, securities purchased in a crowdfunding transaction could not be resold for a period of one year.  Holders of these securities would not count toward the threshold that requires a company to register with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act; (A quote from the SEC website). Each company would be limited to $1,000,000 per year funding via this vehicle. While not a panacea for drugs, it could get a company started, along with friends and family money as well as grants, a project could be advanced. The second new/old option:

  • Regulation D 506 (b) and 506 (c) regulation changes have been put in place and is a modification of Regulation D that has been in effect for some time. This is also known in money circles as the ‘Crowd Funding for the Rich’ as the requirements are investors must meet the criteria for investment. Again, direct messages from the SEC:

“Eliminating the Prohibition Against General Solicitation and General Advertising in Rule 506 and Rule 144A Offerings; A Small Entity Compliance Guide:


Enacted in 2012, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS Act, is intended, among other things, to reduce barriers to capital formation, particularly for smaller companies.  The JOBS Act requires the SEC to adopt rules amending existing exemptions from registration under the Securities Act of 1933 and creating new exemptions that permit issuers of securities to raise capital without SEC registration.  On July 10, 2013, the SEC adopted amendments to Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act to implement the requirements of Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act.  The amendments are effective on September 23, 2013.

Rule 506(b) of Regulation D

Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act exempts from registration “transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.”  Rule 506(b) is a rule under Regulation D that provides conditions that an issuer may rely on to meet the requirements of the Section 4(a)(2) exemption.  One of these conditions is that an issuer must not use general solicitation to market the securities. 

“General solicitation” includes advertisements published in newspapers and magazines, public websites, communications broadcasted over television and radio, and seminars where attendees have been invited by general solicitation or general advertising.  In addition, the use of an unrestricted, and therefore publicly available, website constitutes general solicitation.  The solicitation must be an “offer” of securities, but solicitations that condition the market for an offering of securities may be considered to be offers.

Rule 506(c) of Regulation D

Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act requires the SEC to eliminate the prohibition on using general solicitation under Rule 506 where all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the purchasers are accredited investors.

To implement Section 201(a), the SEC adopted paragraph (c) of Rule 506.  Under Rule 506(c), issuers can offer securities through means of general solicitation, provided that:

  1. all purchasers in the offering are accredited investors,
  2. the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify their accredited investor status, and
  3. certain other conditions in Regulation D are satisfied.

An “accredited investor” includes a natural person who:

  1. earned income that exceeded $200,000 (or $300,000 together with a spouse) in each of the prior two years, and reasonably expects the same for the current year, or
  2. has a net worth over $1 million, either alone or together with a spouse (excluding the value of the person’s primary residence).
  3. An “accredited investor” may also be an entity such as a bank, partnership, corporation, nonprofit or trust, when the entity satisfies certain criteria.  The full definition of “accredited investor” is available here: Accredited Investor Definition SEC “. Finally the third option is to go public using the Regulation D capital raising vehicle (because most startups won’t get the necessary valuation or interest from merchant banks to warrant their trying to launch an IPO).


  • A number of firms are playing in this space of Regulation D funding but Regulation D funding has also been used to launch public companies. While it is not the preferred route. Reg D initiated pre-IPO offerings are sometimes called a ‘Soft listings’ because the capital is raised privately and then the company files for a public listing on the NASDAQ (has to have a certain valuation, net equity and meet SEC requirements). This process is outside the normal ‘merchant banking’ where the banks float the offering and price the shares according to interest from their well-heeled clients which include individuals but also investment funds, hedge funds, pension funds and other sources of investment capital. Generally, ordinary folks are not eligible for standard IPO investments and usually none are eligible for the Reg D investment opportunities. A large amount of capital is raised using the Reg D filing and it is mostly done for hedge funds, VC funds and other investment type funds (SEC says about $1.5 TRILLION). It has been used some by startup companies, as was its intended design, but a vast majority of the capital that is raised is controlled by large, well-financed groups targeting the very companies (startups) that the regulation was first designed to help. Regulation D review article by the SEC can be found at: Reg D Review 2009-2012.
    • One of the companies in the Lifesciences area to promote ‘Crowd Funding’ for Lifesciences (Drugs, Devices and Diagnostics) was created by a broker dealer who had spent years on Wall Street, Jeff Feldman who well knows the ins and outs of raising capital. Mr. Feldman is the founder of Poliwogg an online ‘Crowdfunding’ site and he convinced Greg Simon to become its CEO and spokesperson and Sam Wertheimer, PhD to become Poliwogg’s Chief Investment Officer.
Poliwogg, GLG Pharma
    • Along with a dedicated staff of experts, Poliwogg will offer not only the Crowd Funding for the not so rich and famous but also offer Regulation D offerings to the Rich and Famous. Poliwogg is also in the process of setting up an investment groups where investors can place their capital for a broad based investment fund dedicated to the Lifesciences area and hopes to see the rate of funding through its portal to be over a billion dollars per year in funding. You can see GLG Pharma, LLC listed on their site.

So what does all this mean for startup companies like GLG Pharma that has a combination of revenue generating products already approved for the market (ready to license and launch), re-purposed drugs with new formulations for new indications (shorter time to approval and marketing), a selected developmental compound for the prevention of ADPKD, breast cancer and other proliferative disorders, a pipeline of rational designed molecules and a diagnostic to monitor the patients for disease and treatment? Come visit our website and find out about us at GLG Pharma or sign up with Poliwogg and learn more about GLG Pharma!

Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3, STAT3 inhibitors, Alpha-1, Polycystic Kidney Disease, PKD

Funding News! CB Insights 'The Bull is in Full Swing'!

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Tue, Feb 25, 2014 @ 12:47 PM

This is a great analysis and I wish I could afford this service! CB Insights does an outstanding job of analyzing the markets both public and private. Click:  this particular analysis is telling in two ways, first it tells us that the market valuation increase versus the amount of equity capital raised in an IPO or M&A exit of over $100MM is 38 to 1! That means the companies that raised $1 in equity at the IPO had an average of a $38 in valuation. Second, not a bad ramp, indicating that maybe the valuation slump really is gone? Who could forget the disastrous decade since the internet bubble burst, followed by the Biotech bubble and then the double whammy of the 2007 RECESSION? Since this bull market started in 2009 (recent opines from Security Analysts who by the way didn’t see it at the time!), the S&P 500 index has gone up 173% or about 34.6% average per year (most of that gain has been in the last couple of years) so the Bull is full on. The 15 companies that were evaluated were mostly internet and social media or social network companies so the data is a little skewed when trying to extrapolate this to the healthcare sector and facts are that there is no equity investment capital to extrapolate to the healthcare market, Drugs, Diagnostics and Devices is still paltry. Steve Burrill Click:  at the recent Moffitt Cancer Center meeting in Tampa, FL commented that only “1 out of 150 life science startups get VC funding”. A really poor funding system and a paltry pool of capital for fueling new life science and helping to create new technologies, lower health care costs and treat diseases in the best market in the world. A second comment by a retired J&J Venture Capital Fund manager is that the VC arm of J&J “…turned down 99% of the business plans.” What’s that say about VC funding, industry funding? I’ve said this several times in meeting Deval Patrick, our esteemed Governor “…there is a better way to fund Biotech.” Can we blame the VC’s? Of course not? 160 characters on a cell phone is much safer company to fund and faster to ROI than funding a multi-hundred million dollar drug development program to treat some obscure disease…Am I being sarcastic? Yes of course!

Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3

GLG Focused on Polycystic Kidney Disease and Alpha-1 Tryptase and HCC

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Fri, Feb 07, 2014 @ 04:07 PM

GLG Pharma, LLC has a pharmaceutical and diagnostic product engine that has already generated three lead compounds for interrupting the STAT3 proliferation mechanism in targeted diseases. The Company and its partners, not-for-profit foundations, have selected the target diseases that have no approved treatment regime at this time. Besides combining a diagnostic with a drug therapy for liver cancer patients with Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, the compounds can also be used to treat Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD) and the underlying hypertension associated with the advancing disease. We are seeking the support of both the Alpha-1 Foundation and the PKD Foundation along with their patient advocacy and scientific research groups to help raise money for GLG Pharma and their foundations to complete both missions: Get Approved Therapies to Market for Alpha-1 and PKD patients as soon as possible!

Disease Targets, STAT3, STAT3 Inhibitors

In addition, the National Cancer Institute's Prevent Program is supporting the evaluation of GLG-302 for long term prevention in Breast Cancer patients. The drug candidate, GLG-302 is performing remarkably well in NCI sponsored evaluations and is showing little to no dose limiting toxicities at very high dose (500 mg/kg when GLG believes that the therapeutic treatment is 25-75mg/kg) and long term treatments (now out to almost 90 day toxicity study with no side effects in the mouse and rat) in the animal models is very encouraging. GLG and the NCI are very excited by these results and will push together to make the therapy available to Breast Cancer patients for long term, preventive care therapy.

The real advantage for GLG therapies is a tailored diagnostic test to go along with the therapeutic treatment. This combination of Drug and Diagnostic along with the evolving cancer genetics data and the patient’s genetic information, all this information can add to the focused treatment for specific diseases. While cancer remains the single largest therapeutic area, there are now well over 800 cancer drug therapies in development. Focusing on rare and under treated diseases helps speed products to market and then GLG will expand into therapies for cancer and the development of diagnostic tests. Since venture capital is nearly always focused on return on investment, capital available for long term therapy treatments has diminished considerably. GLG and Poliwogg believe that there is a better way to fund Biotech but we need your help, support and investment. If you don’t invest in GLG, then donate to either the PKD foundation or Alpha-1 or do both. Your investment will be well managed and your dollars well spent!

GLG Pharma, STAT3, PKD, Alpha-1




STAT3, Poliwogg, STAT3 Inhibitors

Poliwogg is a new kind of funding vehicle and we are using Regulation D 506(c) regulations. Want to find out more about the team at Poliwogg? Or want to listen to Greg Simon? Just click the links and your there!





STAT3, Poliwogg, GLG Pharma

Greg Simon, CEO Poliwogg






Tags: STAT3, STAT3 inhibitors, Alpha-1, Polycystic Kidney Disease, PKD

Why is GLG Pharma Different?

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Thu, Jan 02, 2014 @ 10:28 AM

Logo 5 24 13a resized 600

The most important difference is that GLG Pharma are not starting from scratch. We are veterans of many drug discovery, development, launch and successful drug treatment products. Many new companies that were launched and are being launched today in the Biotech and Pharma markets; were and are, started with such marketing and funding concepts as:

  • Transformational (new technology that changes an application within a defined market and industry)
  • Paradigm Shifting (new technology that changes an industry)
  • Innovative Transformations (new applications that open new markets of established market, technology and industry)
  • Ground Breaking Technologies (never before discovered technologies that opens completely new markets)
  • Lots of Investment Capital (Drugs, devices and diagnostics all require large amounts of capital)
  • Lots of equity dilution (founder’s equity is usually reduced to 1-5% of holdings after IPO’s, as a general rule)

GLG Pharma was started with a much simpler and understandable strategy for achieving drug and regulatory approval, a strategy that has two principles. Know your science and know your patient, coupled with shorter to market revenue generating products.

Many drug companies today have that strategy, but they are already funded. These companies are now selling products into a market and now they have become post-transactional savvy, compared to when they were first funded or seeking investment. So what has changed in the Biotech and Pharma world? In our opinion, a lot has changed.

Pharma and Biotech companies and startups have evolved as have the Pharma and Biotech markets in which we all operate. Today, investment for transformational, paradigm shifting and ground breaking technologies out of the high end institutions is still happening and will continue to do so; but the real question is; is this how a new Biotech and Pharmaceutical company should be launched? There is a reduced risk way to fund Pharma and Biotech. At GLG we have combined near term revenue opportunities in cancer with our pipeline development strategy. Our focus remains on the science and the patients, supported by investment and revenue from targeted approved products for prescription and over the counter products. These early stage revenue generators can help fuel and reduce the need for additional investment and subsequent dilution.

Each disease, whether it is AIDS, Influenza, Cancer, Schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, Autosomal Dependent Polycystic Kidney Disease or any other terminal or chronic illness, have families and friends concerned for the patient. The patient is attended to by a cadre of physicians and clinicians who manage the disease and its treatment. It is a very complicated and sometimes a frustrating process, especially in the United States and also in Europe. It is frustrating not only for the patients and their families, but also for startup companies and entrepreneurs who want to launch new products and therapies for those patients. GLG’s focus on the science of disease and a patients therapy in treating proliferative diseases that have p-STAT3 as a mechanism, could help usher in new lower toxicity drugs that improve overall patient care. GLG can also monitor p-STAT3 levels in patients with a disease, alerting clinicians and patients as to the success or failure of a treatment regime.

Since the second great depression; starting in 2007 with the hedge fund collapse, life science technology companies; especially the Biotech and Pharma industries have been declining in value. However, the decline shortly after 9/11 in 2001; drug, biotech and diagnostic stocks and the startups have been on the proverbial slide down the slippery slope of little to no liquidity. Low liquidity for investors, low liquidity in equity markets, little to no availability of capital in bond markets. Adding to the downward spiral is the apparent unending series of regulatory disasters that have left the investment community shying away from anything remotely represented by or requiring an FDA filing and approval. Part of the regulatory perception problem was caused by large Pharma and large Biotech, by sometimes ignoring their responsibility to self-regulate their products, operations and clinical development in accordance with FDA and EMA regulations. A few very visible FDA actions against the industry can affect the entire investment and market landscape, Vioxx, Genzyme’s production failures and a whole host of other disasters, tangibly affected the investor psyche.

GLG’s management team have a performance history; out of the 16 drugs that have been developed and submitted to FDA review and approval by our collective team of professionals and the several FDA site audits of our former operations, 15 of those drugs were approved and none of us received or were cited in a FDA audit for any violations of 21CFR guidelines.

The same principle of respect for the regulatory process, applies to our respect for the patients; that our drugs will be treating. GLG are looking for a series of molecules that will be efficacious for the treatment of patients and have as little side effects as possible. All drugs have side effects that affect some or all patients, so having a chemotherapy agent that does not have side effects are rare. So why did we choose GLG-302, GLG-801, GLG-202, GLG-101 and 401 to advance into clinical development. GLG-302 is a compound that has proven itself in our pre-clinical evaluations as well as by a host of independent laboratories around the world. We have encouraged other laboratories to duplicate our findings and we have built up a successful and prominent following of researchers that now believe that inhibition of p-STAT3 is one of the keys to shutting down cancer cells that have become resistant or are proliferating at an exponential rate.

We are also looking at GLG-302 in combination with other standard chemotherapy agents as this compound has reversed chemotherapy resistant cells in vivo and in vitro, allowing a second course of treatment which eradicates the resistant tumors. This research has also led us to study cancer stem cells which survive standard chemotherapy treatments, these cancer progenitor cells go into a sort of remission and then spread throughout the body and start reproduction at a much higher rate. Cancer stem cells are resistant to chemotherapy treatments and are believed to be one of the major cause for cancer cell metastases. Cancer stem cells appear to be 100% up regulated with p-STAT3.

 GLG Pharma: Drugs, Diagnostics and Devices- delivering more than a drug ©


Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3, STAT 3 inhibitors, STAT3 cancer, STAT3 inhibitors, Cancer, cancer diagnosis, STAT, cancer prevention, STAT3 mechanism

GLG-302 Selected by NCI for Funding in Cancer Prevent Program

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Wed, Jul 24, 2013 @ 12:45 PM

GLG Pharma’s STAT3 Signaling Inhibitor Selected for NCI’s PREVENT Cancer Preclinical Drug Development Program.

Jupiter, FL. July 16, 2013 – GLG Pharma, LLC announces scientific and financial resources of the PREVENT Cancer program of the National Cancer Institute of the NIH have been approved to study the effects of its STAT3 signaling inhibitor, GLG-302 as a breast cancer chemopreventive. The PREVENT Program is a National Cancer Institute-supported pipeline to bring new and novel cancer preventing interventions and biomarkers through preclinical development towards clinical trials.
The selected GLG Pharma study entitled “Evaluate GLG-302 in the Prevention of Mammary Cancers in the ER(+) Methylnitrosourea Rat Model and the ER(–) MMTV-NEU Mouse Model” using well established models of breast cancer will focus on the following areas:
1) Evaluate the MTD, effect on STAT3 in normal mammary tissue and oral efficacy of GLG-302 in mouse models of breast cancer.
2) Assess effects on tumor latency, incidence, multiplicity, and body weight.

This key study is an in-depth continuation of preliminary studies already conducted by GLG Pharma. In these studies GLG-302 was shown to suppress tumor growth in a number of animal models, to have a wide therapeutic index and was well tolerated.

In recommending approval of resources for the project, the PREVENT panel of external experts observed “This pathway is implicated in multiple cancer types. The value of the study goes beyond validating the pathway.”
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, aside from non-melanoma skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States. It is also one of the leading causes of cancer death among women of all races. In the US in 2010, over 200,000 new cases and more than 40,000 deaths due to breast cancer occurred. The greatest achievement for this disease would be to treat high risk women who don’t have detectable breast cancer with an agent that is safe and well tolerated, and would prevent malignant conversion of normal breast cells to cancer.
Hector J. Gomez, MD, PhD, Chairman and CEO of GLG Pharma commented: “The NIH grant confirms the high level of scientific interest and the significant potential of our patented STAT3 signaling inhibitors in cancer prevention. This research program will provide important findings and form the basis for further evaluation and development of new therapeutic and chemopreventive agents in the prevention of breast and other cancers”. STAT3 inhibitors are important targets for cancer prevention and cancer treatment. Developed in collaboration with the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL along with a companion diagnostic test, STAT3 targeting and monitoring is a program that the NCI has spent significant early research money to evaluate and advance. GLG is advancing these discoveries to the clinic and approval.

Landing GLG Pharma

About GLG Pharma
Founded in 2009 and located in Jupiter, Florida, GLG Pharma, LLC is a privately held, early stage, biotechnology company developing personalized therapies for patients with cancer and other proliferative diseases. GLG Pharma’s therapeutics are expected to aid in the treatment of a wide variety of cancers and address unmet needs in the multi-billion dollar anti-cancer market with potentially greater efficacy and fewer side effects than existing therapies. For more information on GLG Pharma visit:

Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3, STAT 3 inhibitors, STAT3 cancer, STAT3 inhibitors, Cancer, cancer diagnosis, STAT, cancer prevention

Startup Funds Still Available! Matching Grant for Investment in Cancer Drug Development.

Posted by Richard Gabriel on Thu, Jun 07, 2012 @ 11:02 AM

Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research Funds Jupiter Biotech Company

GLG Pharma Approved for Seed Capital Accelerator Program

Boca Raton and Gainesville, FL – June 1, 2012 - The Institute for the Commercialization of Public Research (the Institute) announced today that it has provided early-stage funding to GLG Pharma (GLG), a Jupiter-based company developing treatments based on technology licensed from the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, for cancer and other proliferative diseases wherein cells grow or multiply rapidly. The Institute works with Florida’s research universities and institutions to support new company and job creation, and participants in the program must match Institute funding with private capital raised from angel investors and other sources. 

GLG Pharma is developing a series of patented inhibitors of activated Signal Transducer and Activators of Transcription 3 (p-STAT3).  The p-STAT3 protein is encoded by the STAT3 gene and is unique in the ability both to respond to extracellular signals and to regulate other genes directly.  In normal cells, the formation of the p-STAT3 protein is switched on and off in response to signals that control cellular function.  The presence of persistent levels of p-STAT3 is thought to play a key role in a number of diseases including cancer, psoriasis, polycystic kidney disease and Crohn’s disease.  GLG Pharma’s initial therapeutics are expected to aid in the  treatment of a wide variety of cancers with potentially greater efficacy and significantly fewer side effects than existing therapies in the $75-80 billion anti-cancer market.

GLG’s Executive VP Michael W, Lovell, Ph.D. stated that “this funding will enable us to advance the development of three product candidates and expand our collaborations with other research institutions in Florida. We appreciate Florida’s commitment to advancing the Life Sciences sector and these funds will enable us to raise additional capital to support our product commercialization efforts.”  

 “Companies like GLG Pharma demonstrate the promise of a diversified, knowledge-based economy in our state, and we are pleased to offer programs that help early-stage companies such as GLG Pharma achieve critical development milestones, said Jamie Grooms, Institute president and CEO.  “GLG Pharma also represents the statewide connectivity provided by the Institute, which facilitated bringing together technology from West  and Central Florida, management from Northeast Florida, and funding from Southeast Florida.”

About the Institute

Founded in 2007 as a non-profit organization, the Institute is Florida’s One-Stop-Shop for investors and entrepreneurs who seek to identify new opportunities based on technologies developed through publicly-funded research.  The Institute delivers programs that facilitate new venture and job creation through commercially-viable technologies in major industries that are driving the global economy.  The Institute also administers the Florida Research Commercialization Matching Grant Program launched in 2010, and the Seed Capital Accelerator Program launched in 2011.  For more information, visit .

About GLG Pharma

Located in Jupiter, Florida, GLG Pharma, LLC is a privately held, early stage, biotechnology company founded in 2009 to develop personalized therapies for patients with cancer and other proliferative diseases. GLG Pharma’s therapeutics are expected to aid in the treatment of a wide variety of cancers and address unmet needs in the multi-billion dollar anti-cancer market with potentially greater efficacy and fewer side effects than existing therapies. For more information on GLG Pharma visit:

Tags: GLG Pharma, STAT3, STAT 3 inhibitors, STAT3 cancer, cancer diagnosis, STAT

STAT 3 publications are numerous and we hope that the following links will help you better understand it's importance in cancer cell metabolism and cancer cell death. Inhibiting STAT 3 is an important mechanism for encouraging cancer cell death. Using STAT 3 inhibitors with other traditional cancer chemotherapy should help improve patient outcomes. Linking a diagnostic with a STAT 3 inhibitor will also help reduce patient side effects as well as potentially improve patient outcomes.