Fish, I would love to hear your thoughts on the hit article posted today on SA. I scanned thru the qtrly Sec fillings mentioned but did not see mention of deaths in either trial admitted to by Jansenn. The article was mainly a rehash of difficulties in applying Imet to solid tumors in years back. Hopefully, some progress has been made in finding ways to get Imet to work here as well since most tumors rely on telemorase lenght preservation.
Any thoughts?
Nuts
Fishermagnets response to SA article today
Forum rules
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
-
Dogonenuts
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 6:13 pm
Re: Fishermagnets response to SA article today
Hello Dogone,
I waited awhile before posting a comment regarding your request for Fish's reactions to the 2/09/2018 SA article which slams Imetelstat: I did so out of courtesy, as not to jump before Fish. Unlike other forums, this one is an informational discussion. As the Moderator, Fish does not typically engage in the chatter of the daily GERN market .
I have been long GERN x 15 years with a gradual and steady accumulation of shares. As a physician, the science of the novel telomerase inhibition drew me in, while I found those Dolly the sheep years an annoying distraction. I also have been a caretaker for several family members with myeloid issues.
The positive SP move 2 weeks ago, following a positive SA article (which I found to be reasonable, with some balance, and with an acknowledged positive bias) was sure to be followed by profiting by short sellers, because no real news was released. Having watched this speculative phenomenon happening to GERN SP over and over again, I predicted that a gradual SP drop to the next $2.00 buying opportunity.
Instead, a ridiculously-negative spin post was published near the opening of trading yesterday which sped the process. The quality of the reporting was that of a middle school debater assigned to take the negative point of view. Neutral or negative points in the history were arranged in boxes to create the illusion of real analysis. The "analysis" revealed the GERN SP = the company's cash plus Imetelstat valued at 0. A full, point-by-point refutation is not worth the effort, as the members of ImetelChat likely see this point of view as an outlier. The author and his/her short associates made money yesterday. Not mine.
I waited awhile before posting a comment regarding your request for Fish's reactions to the 2/09/2018 SA article which slams Imetelstat: I did so out of courtesy, as not to jump before Fish. Unlike other forums, this one is an informational discussion. As the Moderator, Fish does not typically engage in the chatter of the daily GERN market .
I have been long GERN x 15 years with a gradual and steady accumulation of shares. As a physician, the science of the novel telomerase inhibition drew me in, while I found those Dolly the sheep years an annoying distraction. I also have been a caretaker for several family members with myeloid issues.
The positive SP move 2 weeks ago, following a positive SA article (which I found to be reasonable, with some balance, and with an acknowledged positive bias) was sure to be followed by profiting by short sellers, because no real news was released. Having watched this speculative phenomenon happening to GERN SP over and over again, I predicted that a gradual SP drop to the next $2.00 buying opportunity.
Instead, a ridiculously-negative spin post was published near the opening of trading yesterday which sped the process. The quality of the reporting was that of a middle school debater assigned to take the negative point of view. Neutral or negative points in the history were arranged in boxes to create the illusion of real analysis. The "analysis" revealed the GERN SP = the company's cash plus Imetelstat valued at 0. A full, point-by-point refutation is not worth the effort, as the members of ImetelChat likely see this point of view as an outlier. The author and his/her short associates made money yesterday. Not mine.
-
Fishermangents
- Site Admin
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:39 pm
Re: Fishermagnets response to SA article today
Hi Dogo, I posted some comments on SA today.
If an article is clearly constructed with the purpose of creating a negative image it is difficult to decide where to start. Just take the title: it suggests imetelstat is haunted by a series of death incidents. But reading the article you will see that there is virtualy nothing concrete that justifies the suggestion that deaths are connected with the use of imetelstat. It is no surprise there are deaths in IMbark, because these patients are terminally ill and have very weak health conditions. We already knew that not all patients respond to imetelstat, so it is inevitable that patients die during the trial.
Then we have the heavily constructed and twisted 'opinion' of Mayo Clinic regarding toxicity. Dr.Tefferi, who was principle investigator on this Mayo Pilot Study, in fact said something completely different about that. See below my response to the author, a repost from SA:
=======
Quote from the SA article:
'In addition, we want to point out that the Pilot Study's enrollment was discontinued early, which suggests to us that the trial wasn't promising in later results and/or that the Mayo Clinic may have found the safety profile of imetelstat unacceptable.'
EVERY trial will discontinue at a certain point, no matter how successful a drug is. Do you think a single healthcare center can enroll an endless number of patients?
You ignore the most important fact: that the trial is still going on, which suggests that patients are still benefiting and that the safety profile is acceptable and manageable. If you would taken the effort of looking at the CT site you would have known that.
Have you spoken with the Mayo Clinic? Can you provide any evidence of your assumption? Dr. Tefferi has a very different opinion from what you say:
'We have not seen any grade 3 or 4 toxicity at all. We were very happy with that'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBVRfTM2EnI
Your reasoning is against all logic and against the facts. If the Mayo data would have proven that imet has an 'unacceptable' safety profile (as you suggest), why then:
1) is the FDA allowing the trials to go on while keeping patients exposed to this drug
2) why would JnJ have entered into the license agreement in the first place
3) why would the FDA have granted FTD
4) why would Dr. Raza say that imetelstat side effects are manageable and even less severe then in well known and approved drugs like lenalidome and HMA's?
========
When we will have some positive news - hopefully soon - that article will be quickly forgotten.
If an article is clearly constructed with the purpose of creating a negative image it is difficult to decide where to start. Just take the title: it suggests imetelstat is haunted by a series of death incidents. But reading the article you will see that there is virtualy nothing concrete that justifies the suggestion that deaths are connected with the use of imetelstat. It is no surprise there are deaths in IMbark, because these patients are terminally ill and have very weak health conditions. We already knew that not all patients respond to imetelstat, so it is inevitable that patients die during the trial.
Then we have the heavily constructed and twisted 'opinion' of Mayo Clinic regarding toxicity. Dr.Tefferi, who was principle investigator on this Mayo Pilot Study, in fact said something completely different about that. See below my response to the author, a repost from SA:
=======
Quote from the SA article:
'In addition, we want to point out that the Pilot Study's enrollment was discontinued early, which suggests to us that the trial wasn't promising in later results and/or that the Mayo Clinic may have found the safety profile of imetelstat unacceptable.'
EVERY trial will discontinue at a certain point, no matter how successful a drug is. Do you think a single healthcare center can enroll an endless number of patients?
You ignore the most important fact: that the trial is still going on, which suggests that patients are still benefiting and that the safety profile is acceptable and manageable. If you would taken the effort of looking at the CT site you would have known that.
Have you spoken with the Mayo Clinic? Can you provide any evidence of your assumption? Dr. Tefferi has a very different opinion from what you say:
'We have not seen any grade 3 or 4 toxicity at all. We were very happy with that'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBVRfTM2EnI
Your reasoning is against all logic and against the facts. If the Mayo data would have proven that imet has an 'unacceptable' safety profile (as you suggest), why then:
1) is the FDA allowing the trials to go on while keeping patients exposed to this drug
2) why would JnJ have entered into the license agreement in the first place
3) why would the FDA have granted FTD
4) why would Dr. Raza say that imetelstat side effects are manageable and even less severe then in well known and approved drugs like lenalidome and HMA's?
========
When we will have some positive news - hopefully soon - that article will be quickly forgotten.