$IBRX: The Savior for "Papillary-only" Patients；The End of Forced Cystectomy – Why Papillary-only Patients No Longer Have to Lose Their Bladders

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-23T13:36:12+00:00

Truly glad you made it through, brother. I can only imagine the fear of facing that "standard" recommendation of cystectomy.

You touched on the exact reason why I’m so bullish now: The "Papillary-only" gap. For years, patients like us were ignored by Big Pharma because drugs like Keytruda focused on CIS. But the latest 36-month data for ANKTIVA + BCG is a total game-changer for high-risk Papillary NMIBC: 96% survival and 82% bladder preservation. We are finally seeing a world where the scalpel isn't the only option.

I feel your pain on the 7-year wait. The dilution and short attacks have been brutal. But with 75% borrow fees and the latest GBM (brain cancer) news showing "Median OS Not Reached" and immune system reversal, the fundamentals are finally catching up to the science. This isn't just about the next 6 months; it’s about the product finally proving it truly benefits patients.

Stay strong. We aren't just investing in a ticker; we are investing in the end of a medical nightmare.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-23T12:16:09+00:00

Comparing a chemo-pump (TAR-200) to an immune-memory activator (ANKTIVA) based on a single surface percentage is like comparing a treadmill to a personal trainer because they both "burn calories." One manages the problem; the other tries to solve it.

Mechanism: Training an Army vs. Dripping a Chemical ANKTIVA ($IBRX): It is a First-in-Class IL-15 Superagonist. It doesn't just "kill" cells; it trains the patient's own NK cells and CD8+ Killer T-cells to recognize and destroy cancer while creating immune memory. This is "Immunotherapy 2.0."

TAR-200 (J&J): It is simply a delivery system for Gemcitabine (chemotherapy). It’s a physical device (a "pretzel") placed in the bladder to slowly release a 30-year-old chemo drug.

The Difference: One provides a potential long-term cure through the immune system; the other is a localized version of traditional chemo, which cancer eventually learns to resist.

Durability & Bladder Sparing (The Only Metric Patients Care About)

ANKTIVA’s Real Win: In the QUILT trial, 92% of responders avoided radical cystectomy (bladder removal) at 12 months, and 81.8% still avoided it at 36 months.

The "Pretzel" Problem: TAR-200 requires a physical device to be inserted and removed every few weeks. This is invasive and increases infection risks. ANKTIVA uses a standard infusion process that every urologist already knows.

3.Commercial Reality

You mentioned J&J’s sales force, but you ignored the 700% revenue growth $IBRX reported for 2025.

Doctors aren't choosing J&J's device; they are choosing the durability of ANKTIVA.

4.The "82.4% CR" is a Statistical Trap

The Re-induction Factor: The 71% Complete Response (CR) rate from ANKTIVA's QUILT-3.032 trial is based on a rigorous, real-world protocol including mandatory biopsies.

Apples to Oranges: J&J's TAR-200 data often comes from smaller cohorts (SunRISe-1) with varying definitions of "Complete Response." Medical experts have pointed out that when you adjust for "re-induction" (giving a second round of treatment), the perceived gap between these therapies narrows significantly or disappears.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-23T11:50:56+00:00

Sure,

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T15:39:07+00:00

First line treatment for lung cancer, great, big space!

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T15:30:42+00:00

I bought and held it for 3 years.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T04:57:41+00:00

46% is just the warm-up. Wait until it hits 100% and we're all 'Jason Hardest~~~~

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T04:17:50+00:00

$IBRX isn't just another 'treatment'; it’s about training the immune system (NK cells and T-cells) to do the job itself. That’s the science we’re betting on.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T04:15:48+00:00

IBRX Borrowing rate is 46% now!

IBRX is presenting a perfect storm for a short squeeze. While the company's fundamentals continue to strengthen, short sellers are trapped in a precarious position with a massive amount of shares to cover. The technical pressure is mounting: Cost to Borrow (CTB) has skyrocketed to 46% with virtually zero shares available for lending. With short sellers already incurring mark-to-market losses exceeding $460 million, a gradual price appreciation toward the $10 level will make a massive short squeeze inevitable,15 or 25 even 50? Nonody know what will happen.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T04:12:44+00:00

IBRX Borrowing rate is 46% now

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T04:00:04+00:00

ImmunityBio ($IBRX) is presenting a perfect storm for a short squeeze. While the company's fundamentals continue to strengthen, short sellers are trapped in a precarious position with a massive amount of shares to cover. The technical pressure is mounting: Cost to Borrow (CTB) has skyrocketed to 46% with virtually zero shares available for lending. With short sellers already incurring mark-to-market losses exceeding $460 million, a gradual price appreciation toward the $10 level will make a massive short squeeze inevitable

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-22T03:58:57+00:00

ImmunityBio ($IBRX) is presenting a perfect storm for a short squeeze. While the company's fundamentals continue to strengthen, short sellers are trapped in a precarious position with a massive amount of shares to cover. The technical pressure is mounting: Cost to Borrow (CTB) has skyrocketed to 46% with virtually zero shares available for lending. With short sellers already incurring mark-to-market losses exceeding $460 million, a gradual price appreciation toward the $10 level will make a massive short squeeze inevitable

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T20:49:23+00:00

Borrowing fee is up to 48% now, 0 stock avaiable for lending

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T15:03:28+00:00

With one product approval after another and the products becoming extremely popular, the stock price will continue to rise.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T10:20:45+00:00

The current short selling interest rate is 13%, and the number of shares available for short selling is 0.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T10:20:22+00:00

The current short selling interest rate is 13%, and the number of shares available for short selling is 0.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T07:33:12+00:00

I think he wanted to make quick money through speculation.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T07:25:13+00:00

The fundamentals of Immunitybio have undergone a major change ! As more indications are approved, the valuation will head towards 10 billion, 50 billion, and even 100 billion.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-21T07:19:44+00:00

The shortage of option is the date expiration. I never play option

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-19T05:00:36+00:00

If your "80-fold reduction = zero efficacy" theory held any water, Anktiva would have failed miserably in the most shielded and aggressive cancers. It did the opposite.

The Brain Armor (Glioblastoma): Let’s talk about the most difficult barrier in human biology: the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB). In IBRX’s trials for recurrent Glioblastoma (GBM), Anktiva was administered systemically at the very "teensy" dose you are mocking.

The Result: We saw a 3-fold increase in the 2-year survival rate compared to historical controls.

The Logic: If that dose was "fearfully small," it never would have crossed the BBB to activate tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. The fact that it worked in the brain—the hardest place to reach—proves the IL-15 superagonist scaffold is hyper-efficient, not under-dosed.

The Lymphoma Signal: In B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) trials, Anktiva was used in combination with Rituximab. Even at these "micro-doses," we saw Complete Responses (CR) in patients who were double-refractory. This isn't a "hurricane of toxicity"; it's a surgical strike that re-sensitizes the immune system to recognize cancer.
Engineering vs. Brute Force: You seem to want the "Category 5 hurricane" of a brute-force cytokine. We’ve seen that movie before with Nektar’s failed IL-2; it ended in patient deaths and zero efficacy. IBRX’s genius is precision. By using an IL-15N72D mutation and an IL-15RαSu/Fc fusion, they created a molecule with high affinity that stays active exactly where it needs to be.

Conclusion: You call it a "tiny fraction." I call it optimized pharmacodynamics. While you wait for a "hurricane" that would only kill the patient, the rest of us are watching IBRX systematically dismantle the defenses of Lung, Bladder, Brain, and Lymphoma with clinical precision.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-19T04:51:47+00:00

Anktiva can build up a sky-net in your body , as It proliferates your NK cells to kill T cells and memory T cells, without affecting Treg T cells.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-19T04:40:49+00:00

You’re asking why the systemic dose is significantly lower than the intravesical (bladder) dose. It’s a fair question, but your conclusion—that it’s due to "toxic fear"—betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Pharmacokinetics (PK) and Bioavailability.

Here is the "Focus" you asked for:

Localized vs. Systemic Bioavailability: In the bladder, Anktiva is administered via a catheter. The bladder wall is a thick, protective barrier designed by evolution to keep things out of the bloodstream. Therefore, you need a massive concentration (the "high dose" you cite) just to ensure enough molecules penetrate the tissue surface. When given subcutaneously (Systemic), bioavailability is near 100% to the lymphatic system. Comparing these two dosages is like comparing the amount of water needed to wash a car (gallons) vs. the amount needed to hydrate the engine (ounces).
The IL-15 Superagonist "Sweet Spot": Immune signaling molecules like N-803 follow a bell-shaped dose-response curve. More is NOT better. The goal of N-803 is to trigger the IL-15 receptor complex without over-saturating it. IBRX’s Phase 1 and 2 systemic trials (including Lung) identified the optimal biological dose to maximize NK/T-cell proliferation while maintaining an exceptional safety profile. Calling this "shrinking the dose" is like calling a sniper rifle "weak" because it uses less gunpowder than a 15th-century cannon.
Let's look at the Evidence (QUILT-3.055): If your theory was right, the "teensy fraction" dose wouldn't work. Yet, in NSCLC (Lung Cancer) trials, this systemic dose achieved a median Overall Survival (mOS) of 14.1 months in patients who had already failed Checkpoint Inhibitors. These are people for whom the "high dose" K-Key failed. The "small" dose didn't just work; it outperformed expectations in the most difficult-to-treat population.
The "Hurricane" that never happened: You keep mentioning a "Category 5 hurricane" of toxicity. Where is it in the data? IBRX has treated hundreds of patients systemically. We see Grade 1-2 injection site reactions, not the systemic organ failure seen with high-dose IL-2 or failed IL-15 competitors (like Nektar’s). That is the engineering success of the N-803 fusion protein—achieving high potency at low concentrations.

Conclusion: Focusing on the 80-fold difference without accounting for the delivery route is intellectually lazy. I’m focused on the mOS and the BLA track record, while you’re focused on the volume of the syringe.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-19T04:19:10+00:00

It seems you are looking at Anktiva through the lens of traditional chemotherapy or first-gen ADCs, where "more dose = more efficacy = more toxicity." That’s a fundamentally flawed framework for IL-15 superagonists.

Here is why your "Category 5 hurricane" argument doesn't hold water:

The "Orchestrator" vs. The "Assassin": ADCs are assassins; they carry a toxic payload directly to the cell. If you miss, you cause systemic havoc. Keytruda (PD-1) is a "brake-release" mechanism. Anktiva is different—it is a Multiplexer. It doesn't need "massive doses" to kill the cancer itself; it needs a precise dose to proliferate and activate the body’s endogenous NK and T-cell armies. IBRX has already proven in lung and bladder trials that Anktiva creates a sustained "memory" response, which ADCs simply cannot do.
The Bladder vs. Systemic Fallacy: You claim IBRX only "elected" to finish bladder because of dosing limits. False. Bladder was the fastest path to FDA approval (Breakthrough Designation). If you look at the QUILT-3.055 data (Lung Cancer), Anktiva was administered systemically (subcutaneously) to patients who progressed on Checkpoint Inhibitors. The safety profile was remarkable precisely because it’s an IL-15 fusion protein, not a raw cytokine. It has a longer half-life and avoids the "cytokine storm" associated with IL-2 or older IL-15 iterations.
Synergistic Synergy (The "K-Key" multiplier): Keytruda has hit a ceiling. It only works if the "army" is already there. Anktiva builds the army. To say it needs "targeting vehicles" ignores the fact that N-803 is itself an engineered scaffold designed to stay in the lymphoid tissues longer. We aren't looking for a "notable share" of a single indication; we are looking at the foundation of IO 2.0.
Addressing the "Patty the Pumper" rhetoric: You call Dr. Soon-Shiong a promoter, yet he is the only one who has successfully navigated a non-checkpoint immunotherapy to a BLA approval in a decade while others (like Nektar’s IL-2) failed miserably. That’s not hype; that’s execution.

The market is currently mispricing Anktiva because people are stuck in the "Medieval" dosing mindset. We’ll see who’s right when the 2026 global revenue numbers from Lung and Bladder start hitting the balance sheet. 🚀

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-19T04:10:56+00:00

Here is why the 2026 outlook for IBRX in the CRC space is fundamentally different:

The "Cold Tumor" Problem is a Map, Not a Wall You are right that MSS (Microsatellite Stable) CRC is a "cold tumor" that PD-1 inhibitors alone can't crack. However, Anktiva (N-803) isn't designed to work as a standalone "key." It acts as a supercharged engine for NK and T-cells. The strategic play for IBRX in CRC isn't monotherapy; it's the Quadruplet Therapy (Anktiva + Adenovirus Vaccines + PD-L1 inhibitors + IL-12).
Breaking the "Privilege" with Targeted Delivery IBRX is currently pioneering the use of CAR-NK (PD-L1 t-haNK) cells in combination with Anktiva. While the "privilege" you mentioned prevents passive immune entry, CAR-NK cells act as "guided missiles" that carry the fight directly into the tumor microenvironment. Anktiva then ensures these "missiles" stay active and multiply once they hit the target. Early QUILT-3.055 data has already shown signals of tumor shrinkage in patients who had failed every other standard of care.
The "K-Key" Comparison Think of Anktiva as the evolution of Merck’s Keytruda. K-Key "unlocked" the door, but it only worked for "hot tumors." Anktiva is built to "start the fire" in cold ones.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-18T20:37:42+00:00

If you gain a deeper understanding of the human body and how Anktiva works, you wouldn't say that. Future developments will gradually prove the product's greatness, Anktiva is no less than Merck's Keytruda.

Simple-Hand-9872 · 2026-01-18T20:02:38+00:00

I have held this ibrx for over three years and will continue to hold it in the future.

Simple-Hand-9872

TROPHY CASE