State of the Union, post Storm

Forum rules
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
Post Reply
Ryan
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:41 pm

State of the Union, post Storm

Post by Ryan » Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:05 pm

Here are some of my musings, summing up the recent history of Imetelstat/Geron... it got buried on the Y! board with more than a dozen thumb-downs. I mention that cause the post also is in relation to the stock price, which is a little out-of-bounds for this board, imo.

Hopefully we're through the storm that the Janssen CD tornado brought, and it's clear skies from here. I think we're all a bit road-weary and are not prepared for any more surprises. Negative surprises that is,,, we haven't had a true + surprise since the Mayo abstract in 2013. Cheers all!

“De-risked” has been proven out, in a very long, meandering and confusing way over the past several months.

All the other noise aside ( a lot of it valid noise, I’m just saying put it aside):
- Preclinical research and theory was always extremely exciting, including a Nobel Prize

- The Mayo Clinic pilot study delivered stunning results in a very small sample size. Can I say it? “Tantamount to a cure” in some cases. It’s in the Mayo Clinic brochure; they are proud of Dr. T and his groundbreaking work

- The Mayo Clinic pilot results were peer-reviewed in NEJM. That’s the New England Journal of Medicine and that’s the gold standard.

- Janssen trials have honed in on optimal dosage, identified genetic markers that are most likely to deliver a efficacy response, and seem to have more than confirmed the results of Mayo Clinic pilot

- Preclinical study in combo for AML points a gigantic arrow at what appears to be a cure for this viscous disease

- Study out of Yale is identifying a bio marker and potential for a pan-Cancer treatment with Imet

- Geron loaded up on funds to take the MDS trial to Phase III initiation
The risk of this study failing is very low. Very very low based on the past decade of research that are the foundation for the trial

- Geron trial collaborators are standing up to deliver the results of their 3+ year trial in both indications sponsored by Janssen. I expect they are results that will intrigue their colleagues, and biopharma execs alike

For more scientific details, check the sdrawkcabeman Twitter posts. However the future is bright for Imet, and value will increase in the company that owns 100% of it, in my opinion, slowly and at some times lightning fast... this stock will rise over the next 5 years.

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: State of the Union, post Storm

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:20 pm

Ryan, Great assessment! I have been enjoying your contribution on Y board. I use "Necmi" on that board. I would like to know your thoughts on the following from another thread in reply to biopearl's message:
"Thank you for confirming my suspicion that Tefferi/Mayo pilot trial involved early stage patients. If Imet provides "disease modifying" spectacular results for the early stage patients, then Janssen trial design focusing on R/R patients was not a good idea by any stretch. The Imet trial for MF should have focused on early stage patients with the end point being progression free survival (PFR). It is quite plausible that these patients would be relatively symptom free (or reduced levels) and live longer lives than the case of Jakafi-R/R point-Imet sequence. In any disease if available drugs heal the root cause of the disease symptoms decrease and eventually disappear. Provided the aforementioned design is successful, Jakafi market could be largely cannibalized by Imet as well. Jakafi would be used only if symptoms while on Imet warrant it. If there is any shred of validity in these considerations, Janssen's design did a huge favor to the competitor. I don't know if Geron had any say in the study design for Imet at Janssen'.

Ryan
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:41 pm

Re: State of the Union, post Storm

Post by Ryan » Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:23 pm

I am as confounded as most, by the study design and the slow path to regulatory review, for a therapy that appears to be transformational.

The answers to your specific questions are most likely only known to corporate insiders, and anyone they may have discussed it with.

Gwikley
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: State of the Union, post Storm

Post by Gwikley » Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:55 am

The economics of this company while controversial, are certainly important. That they are not discussed here is polite and respectful of the "science" emphasis of this board.

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: State of the Union, post Storm

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:07 pm

The utility of science is as important as the science. What if MOS does not turn out clinically meaningful in R/R context? Imetelstat for MF would be shelved (current design version or indefinitely) with significant sunk costs of time (critical for patients) and money. Patients would be left with inferior drug which treats only the symptoms. This trial design issue is a very important topic IMO that needs to be discussed in a serious forum ( free of pumpers, bashers and nonsense chatter).

Post Reply