Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Forum rules
- Comments must be civil and on topic
- Back up claims with evidence/reasoning/sources (posting links is allowed)
- No commercials/harassment/spam
karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:48 am

I drafted the below statement of inquiry to be addressed to Dr. Scarlett. I will ask Jacob, investor relations official, to forward it to Dr. Scarlett.
Skilled writers, lease edit the statement before I send it. Also, please incorporate any quantitative facts where appropriate. I believe we should keep it relatively short and focused on the major issues related to restoring investor confidence.

Dear Dr. Scarlett:

Several of us collaborated to write you and seek answers to the issues that have been troubling us for some time. Some of us investors are bearing over half a million dollar worth of paper losses and therefore have vested interest in Geron’s success.
Below are our questions:
1) The inquiries about the inclusion of Imetelestat in Janssen’s compassionate use list had been answered by Janssen officials as “administrative error”. If it was in fact an administrative error, why hasn’t any official from Geron side of the partnership noticed the error, while at the same time frame many investors on the conversation boards had been cheering about this pivotal occurance, and took timely action to correct it to protect Geron investors from being mislead? How can it be possible that Geron officials missed both the compassionate use list error and job posting error at the same time frame? If it was not an administrative error, why have you not shown the same determination and enthusiasm as Janssen to facilitate a speedy process to get Imetelstat approved?
2) Why is 30 months MOS not sufficient enough to try NDA without Phase 3 and that why has the MF trial extended to reevaluate the potential in the future whether Imet for MF should go to Phase 3? Consider track record of MOS in FDA approved drugs. Avastin had received accelerated approval in 2008 after a study showed it improved survival by 5.5 months over chemotherapy alone in breast cancer patients. Article published in USA today states most cancer drugs approved by FDA do little to improve survival: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /97712858/
3) Why do you not consider accelerating the process of transferring the trials from Janssen to Geron? Would it not be worth to expand time-money-energy and use project management techniques (e.g., CPM) in an effort to accelerate the process for a fast track drug? This is an economical matter as much as an ethical one. Losses due to delayed revenues, and patients not being able to use Imetelstat because they die before it is available are the factors that cannot be ignored.
4) Why is it necessary to seek a partner only after the transfer of the trials? Wouldn’t it be an advantage to have a partner with deep pockets and experience to accelerate the transfer of the trials to their R&D organization rather than the transfer to Geron first with a considerable time lag and then reroute the transfer to the new partner?
5) Do you have specific plans to restore investor confidence, which had been shattered after J&J walked? If so, what are your plans?

We will share your reply to this letter with members of Yahoo Conversation Board as well Imetelchat website.

Dr. Scarlett, if you don’t have cogent answers to the above questions, with all due respect, please consider resigning.

Kind Regards,
Less
The 72 cancer therapies approved from 2002 to 2014 gave patients only 2.1 more months of life than older drugs.
The 72 cancer therapies approved from 2002 to 2014 gave patients only 2.1 more months of life than older drugs.
The 72 cancer therapies approved from 2002 to 2014 gave patients only 2.1 more months of life than older drugs.

biopearl123
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by biopearl123 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:51 am

I think it’s a good letter but I would suggest taking out the line about resigning. I do think Dr Scarlett takes his job seriously and he already knows he has a responsibility to his shareholders and will have to answer to us. I also think we know more about why Janssen walked and I agree they and Geron should be called to account. With the excellent PII results I do not think we have escaped notice from BP. bp

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:01 pm

Thanks for feedback. I am willing to delete the part about his resignation. Can someone help edit this letter? English is my second language.

huntingonthebluffs
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by huntingonthebluffs » Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:56 pm

karagozoglu12345 , I suspect I am not your most effective option here but I could take a cut at editing your letter assuming you don’t have other volunteers. I would have to say that while the questions are good the tone is contentious. I would prefer, that while still being very direct, avoiding possibly antagonizing the sources. I personally have not found that approach the most productive in obtaining information or delivering constructive criticism. Also, some of your questions make assumptions that I would want to restate. I am fairly busy currently so might take a day or more but would do my best to edit the letter and you could take from there. Let me know if you want me to help.

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:00 pm

Thank you for your offer to help. I am not sure the letter is contentious and antagonizing. Based on the feedback I received from YMB with 35 thumbs up I understand good number of investors want answers to these questions. Frankly, I am not holding my breath that Dr. Scarlett will answer this letter. He may even opt to answer it in a diplomatic , evasive manner. We may never get the truth to these questions. However, if we can get him to read and understand the investors' thoughts, that in itself is an accomplishment in my opinion. I am sure he would understand the tone in the letter if he chooses to interpret it as antagonistic. Investors lost significant amount of hard earned money, some on paper, and dreams had been shattered. I am personally embarrased to even admit the amount I lost (on pape)r, mainly because I have a hard time coming to grips with my huge investment mistake to hold my shares through the CD WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THE DATA! It is painful! I am okay with omitting the part on "resignation" as Biopearl suggested but do not want to compromise directness and the specifics of these questions. My intention is not to accuse him or flatter him, but simply ask him pivotal questions that I and most investors of Geron feel unanswered up to now. You are more than welcome to correct my facts if my knowledge about these and memory defied me. Also, there is a possibility that the letter may help him shape his own thoughts going forward. Smart executives don't always make the best decisions (problem of various biases, overconfidence bias etc.) , and for this reason consulting firms are often brought in to bring objectivity and fresh perspectives. Thank you again for your willingness to help.
\

huntingonthebluffs
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by huntingonthebluffs » Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:17 am

Well just so you know, I am also in the club with greater than a half million in losses and they are not all paper losses as many options have gone up in smoke as did another chunk today. I likely resonate your pain in all the dimensions you eluded to in your post. Like I said I’m not best suited to doing anything with the tone you suggest and the YMB has never struck me as demonstrating a collective skill for constructively seeking out answers of this scope and importance.

I think you are best suited to communicate the points you have laid out above in the tone and manner you prefer. Second language or not, you have a good grip on it and they will understand what you are driving at. I think if I did anything I would basically just look to reframe the first three questions, the last two could go as is.

For example, on 1.) I personally don’t know any of the background on the so called administrative errors, you are indicating that they knew and did nothing about it. I would simply ask for them to further explain what went on there as many retail investors found those actions to be strong signs of a positive CAD. I did as well. On 2.) I don’t know if or why 30 months is not sufficient, seems to me it is more than adequate and that is what could come out of the meetings over the next several months. I think the question can be more focused on: with 30 months in the bag, what are the constraints, if any, preventing accelerated approval. 3.) Again looks like a good question to me, I would just ask to shed light on why it is taking that length of time and what if anything can / are they doing to reduce those time frames. 4. & 5.) These questions look okay to me

Lastly, in my view it would be helpful to also ask if they are seeking out any assistance from benign investor or medical activists to help them navigate the challenges in both the financial and FDA/EUA environments. If they are, who are they and if not, why not. I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more help. Good luck with this and hope to hear what feedback you receive in response.

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:49 pm

I will email the letter Monday morning. If anyone cares enough and has time to edit the letter over the weekend for grammar, syntax, clarity etc. that would be great. If you are willing to do so please also incorporate Huntingtonthebluff's feedback.

biopearl123
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by biopearl123 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:52 pm

Hunt and Kara, thank you for taking this on. I think a respectful well written letter as you are fashioning together would be greatly appreciated by many including myself. Perhaps you may be willing to converse privately via SA or if I have your permission I can supply your registered email address to you each privately. bp

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 8:25 pm

You have my permission.

huntingonthebluffs
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by huntingonthebluffs » Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:22 am

I am not sure you are looking for me to do this but here is my hurried cut, I hope it helps. I won't have much time from here until after Christmas.

Your Letter to JS/Geron

Dear Dr. Scarlett:

Please read this letter and respond freely with the level of detail a most knowledgeable investor and patient base could find useful. This letter and related questions for your thoughts come from collaboration and input via a large cross-section of investors and patients using the various social media platforms including ImetelChat.com, Seeking Alpha, Twitter, Facebook and the Yahoo Geron message board.

Many have collaborated and contributed to this inquiry in hopes of being provided answers to the issues that have been troubling us for some time and have not been addressed adequately in your conference calls to investors and analysts. Many of us, your company’s retail investors suffered staggering losses in the aftermath of the JNJ/Janssen decision. Yet we continue to maintain a vested interest in Geron’s success in commercializing Imetelstat and delivering Imetelstat to the thousands of patients desperately in need of its proven effectiveness.

As long standing shareholders, please provide your detailed answers to the following six questions:

1) The inquiries about the inclusion of Imetelestat in Janssen’s compassionate use list had been answered by Janssen officials as “administrative error”. Many of us find that explanation inadequate on several levels, especially timing as it led many investors to cheer this as a pivotal signal JNJ/Janssen would make a positive continuation decision. Similarly, the job postings made by Janssen on planning and pricing for Imetelstat was apparently made in error in the same timeframe. The job postings were also interpreted both as an impending positive continuation and likely action related to drug approval. Again the investors and patients alike were guided due to these actions.

Certainly the Geron / Janssen joint steering committee (JSC) must have been involved, can you explain how something so significant and impactful could have occurred in error given Geron’s involvement and oversight via the JSC?

2) 30 months MOS in the IMbark clinical trial (CT) along with the other improvements appear so astounding as immediate accelerated approval seems straightforward without a Phase III trial.
Consider the track record of MOS in FDA approved drugs. Avastin had received accelerated approval in 2008 after a study showed it improved survival by 5.5 months over chemotherapy alone in breast cancer patients. Article published in USA today states most cancer drugs approved by FDA do little to improve survival: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /97712858/

Will accelerated approval or any other advanced designation be included in your discussions with the FDA in 1Q2019 and what are the constraints that seem to be delaying any action in this space until the end of 3Q2019?

3) The length of time to transfer the intellectual property and trials back to Geron appears very conservative at best. Every effort should be made to speed the transfers up in light of the ethical and financial implications; these critical factors cannot be avoided. It is of major concern that patients are not receiving Imetelstat and dying in waiting. Likewise, delays in obtaining revenue streams necessary for sustaining Geron are critical as well.

Given the competitive landscape along with the ethical and financial considerations, what management tools and actions have you put in place to facilitate accelerating the transfer processes?

4) There appears to be obvious advantages of having a partner(s) with strong financial support and experience available now. Significant time and expense could be saved by having the partner help accelerate and receive the transfer of the trials across both both companies R&D organizations, etc., versus reintegrating with the partner in an entirely unrelated second phase later in the year.

Why is it necessary to delay seeking a partner until after the transfer of the trials, etc.?

5) What specific plans are you considering to restore investor confidence, which was shattered following JNJ/Janssen’s negative continuation decision and the outline of your five year plan to reach commercialization?

6) Lastly, could you elaborate on if you are / are not seeking out assistance from benign investor or medical activists to assist you / Geron navigate the challenges in both the financial and FDA/EUA environments, including the names of these organizations.

Thank you for your informational and detailed response. I will share your reply to this letter with members of Yahoo Conversation Board as well Imetelchat website.

Kind regards,
Karagozoglu12345

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:30 am

Hunt, thank you! I like your revisions to the draft. Can you please add one more item ? One of the most pivotal factor preventing share price appreciation, imo, is the negative assumption investors have been making regarding J&J's decision to dissolve the partnership. if J&J did not walk due to data related issues or commercial potential related concerns, knowing this would make a huge impact on investor confidence going forward. We may suggest Dr. Scarlett to clarify this any fashion he sees fit in future investor meetings/conferences, as an added question/suggestion to the draft.
I believe, if he is genuinely interested in creating shareholder value, he would appreciate our questions as the share price is now close to cash value and investors do not seem to place value to Imetelstat. Again, imo, the most beneficial aspect of this letter is to provide him with an outside perspective in the same vein as business consultants provide. If you agree, we may even pose this letter as a feedback of concerns and suggestions than questions that he is asked to answer.

Ryan
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 1:41 pm

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by Ryan » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:38 pm

I would never question your right to question management, I just wouldn't hold out hope for anything but the canned answers we all have seen.

What I would do is refocus on the superior data presented as ASH and the real developments that are happening...

Here are some of the developments that have happened in the 3 months since the infamous Continuation decision in late September:

- ASH data was released, and it reconfirmed the breakthrough results of the Mayo Clinic pilot, in *both indications.

- Geron committed to initiation of Phase III in MDS, and have begun taking steps to commence within the next 6 months. (Dare I mention job postings, I think not considering the Janssen postings)

- Janssen exec takes Chief Scientific Officer role at Incyte. (Hello?)

- Dr. John Mascarenhas, a collaborator with Incyte as well as Janssen in the Imet MF trial, reprises the ASH oral presentation, and speaks specifically of changing the FDA paradigm for approvals when overall survival in patients is a factor. (Imetelstat is a Curative not palliative therapy.)

- Geron has stated their intent to further discuss MF results and roadmap with the top industry experts. With Dr. M and Dr. T already in the fold, those are probably the top 2 in the world right there.

- This past week the FDA released new protocol paradigms for cancer trials, specifically when Overall Survival is an endpoint and there is an unmet need. Sound familiar.

- Imetelstat is an FDA fast-track drug. (But as I have said before, if this is the fast track, just thankful it is not on the slow track.)

Besides the stock price and the 'fog of war' created by the JNJ retreat, there are very positive material events happening. And trust me, I hate the stock price decimation. It hurts. But I wouldn't put too many expectations into answers to your questions, even with the stock price. PR representative will most likely restate the two bullet points above that start with "Geron" and speak to public statements they have already made.

I would hope for a more enlightening and straight-forward conference call in the Q4 conference call, but I won't hold my breath! A happy Christmas too all.

bucbeard
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2018 12:30 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by bucbeard » Sun Dec 23, 2018 10:32 pm

Solid Post. Thanks Ryan!

Gwikley
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by Gwikley » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:37 am

Your are to be commended for your insightful letter and the intents behind it. Sad to realize that the company has a standing policy not to respond, except in boiler plate, cliche hyperbole. But good effort anyway.

huntingonthebluffs
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:00 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by huntingonthebluffs » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:42 am

Karagozoglu12345, check your email for letter updates.

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 4:47 am

Here is the final draft which includes invaluable contributions by Huntingtonthebluffs and Biopearl.


Hi Jacob,

I would like to kindly ask you to forward the below letter to Dr. Scarlett and to the Board of Directors on behalf of I and a group of shareholders.

Thank you!

Errol Kara



Dear Dr. Scarlett and the Board of Directors:

This letter reflects collaboration and input via a large cross-section of investors and patients using the various social media platforms including ImetelChat.com, Seeking Alpha, Twitter, Facebook and the Yahoo Geron message board. Many have collaborated and contributed to this inquiry in hopes of being provided answers to the issues that have been troubling us for some time and have not been addressed adequately in your conference calls to investors and analysts. Many of us, your company’s retail investors suffered staggering losses in the aftermath of the JNJ/Janssen decision. Yet we continue to maintain a vested interest in Geron’s success in commercializing Imetelstat and delivering Imetelstat to the thousands of patients desperately in need of its proven effectiveness.

Please share your detailed responses to the following six questions with us now as well as with the investor community at large, as appropriate, in press releases and the upcoming official forums. We believe your cogent answers to these will help reduce the investor uncertainty and go a long way to restore our confidence in Geron’s success. We have all seen and understand the standard responses you have authorized via your IR department, however, it would be in everyone’s best interest if you could now provide a more enlightening and straightforward set of responses to our questions.


1) The inquiries about the inclusion of Imetelestat in Janssen’s compassionate use list had been answered by Janssen officials as “administrative error”. Many of us find that explanation inadequate on several levels, especially timing as it led many investors to cheer this as a pivotal signal JNJ/Janssen would make a positive continuation decision. Similarly, the job postings made by Janssen on planning and pricing for
Imetelstat was apparently made in error in the same timeframe. The job postings were also interpreted both as an impending positive continuation and likely action related to drug approval. Again the investors and patients
alike were guided due to these actions.

Certainly the Geron / Janssen joint steering committee (JSC) must have been involved, can you explain how something so significant and impactful could have occurred in error given Geron’s involvement and oversight via the JSC?

2) 30 months MOS in the IMbark clinical trial (CT) along with the other improvements appear so astounding as immediate accelerated approval seems straightforward without a Phase III trial. Consider the track record of MOS in FDA approved drugs. Avastin had received accelerated approval in 2008 after a study showed it improved survival by 5.5 months over chemotherapy alone in breast cancer patients. Article
published in USA today states most cancer drugs approved by FDA do little to improve survival: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /97712858/

Will accelerated approval or any other advanced designation be included in your discussions with the FDA in 1Q2019 and what are the constraints that seem to be delaying any action in this space until the end of 3Q2019?

3) The length of time to transfer the intellectual property and trials back to Geron appears very conservative at best. We believe every effort should be made to speed the transfers up in light of the ethical and financial implications; these critical factors cannot be avoided. It is of major concern that patients are not receiving Imetelstat and dying in waiting. Likewise, delays in obtaining revenue streams necessary for sustaining Geron are critical as well.

Given the competitive landscape along with the ethical and financial considerations, what management tools and actions have you put in place to facilitate accelerating the transfer processes?

4) There appear to be obvious advantages of having a partner(s) with strong financial support and experience available now. Significant time and expense could be saved by having the partner help accelerate and receive the transfer of the trials across both both companies’ R&D organizations, etc., versus reintegrating with the partner in an entirely unrelated second phase later in the year.

Why is it necessary to delay seeking a partner until after the transfer of the trials, etc.?

5) Given the outstanding CT results presented at the 2018 ASH conference, the reasons for JNJ/Janssen’s negative decision does not appear to be data related but rather something else such as regulatory feedback and / or revenue outlook possibly based on patient numbers or commercialization delays. J&J’s brief official statement regarding their decision to end the partnership had not alleviated investor concerns. Uncertainty regarding this issue is weighing heavily on investor confidence. If you can add any detail beyond J&J’s statement, this would be immensely helpful.

What specific plans are you considering to restore investor confidence, which was shattered following JNJ/Janssen’s negative continuation decision?

6) Lastly, could you elaborate on if you are / are not seeking out
assistance from benign investor or medical activists to assist you / Geron navigate the challenges in both the financial and FDA/EUA environments, including the names of these organizations?


Thank you kindly,

Geron shareholders (with substantial holdings)

biopearl123
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by biopearl123 » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:12 pm

Kara, I meant to suggest that it might also be worthwhile to ask about the listing of Imetelstat for patients who. were too ill for induction therapies in AML. Including this on Janssen's list of this potential indications was also incredibly misleading and pointed toward the CD. Thanks again to you and Hunt for your efforts. bp

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:35 pm

Bp, I did not know about the listing you mentioned at the time I drafted the letter. I think we have delved into the heart of those misleading actions via the compassionate use list and "job posting" in the letter. I am not holding my breath about receiving fact of the matter response from Dr. Scarlett. But, I do feel good about having comprehensively covered the crucial issues that comprise the center of gravity of pathway to Geron's success.

biopearl123
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:13 pm

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by biopearl123 » Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:19 pm

Kara, to your point about Geron's role in oversight of the agreement with Janssen, take a look at the 2016 letter to stockholders. I tried to copy it here but just got gibberish. It emphasizes Geron's role in planning and oversight. There is no way they could not have known about the plans for compassionate use, additional indications, (pts too sick for AML induction) or the job postings. I believe (my opinion) is that there has been some malfeasance or at least misrepresentation in Janssen's statements here that deserve explanation as you have elegantly set forth. I do think there are some potential interesting developments. It is clear that Janssen and even Dr. Mascarenhas were expecting some PR/CR activity as saw virtually none (but there were bone marrow improvements). Also spleen size was a bar set too high (Dr. M says 10% feels the same to a patient as 35 %--if so many more patients crossed that line). The very recent publication of the FDA's guidelines for approval in oncology does emphasize OS as a desired endpoint, the magnitude in OS we are seeing was probably unanticipated. The guideline was published after the failure of Janssen to continue the agreement. Perhaps they didn't know how the FDA was going to update the guidelines (unlikely, but possible given the opacities we face). Also note in the forward looking statements from the last few PRs, that MF is no longer mentioned in any way. I have no idea why this is, but the focus seems to be on MDS at this point, perhaps with good reason since the data was so impressive. The FDA statement indicates the necessity of a randomized study for approval consideration. We have always lacked a control arm (both studies) but at least MF could be considered randomized in the sense that one hopes the FDA would consider the low dose group as a comparator. Its very hard to know and it would be great if Dr. Scarlett would tell us. The absence of discussion of MF in the forward looking statements suggests to me that some fundamental change in approach has occurred. The way things are going I somehow doubt that change in imminent approval as I had hoped. I hope Dr. Scarlett will grace us with a reply to your letter otherwise we should camp out on his doorstep. bp

karagozoglu12345
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:48 am

Re: Letter to Dr. Scarlett

Post by karagozoglu12345 » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:39 am

Bp, I agree with your assesment and share the same concerns you have pointed out.


Email flow re: letter to Scarlett and the Board of Directors:


Hello,

Thank you for your interest in Geron your feedback is appreciated.

Your letter will be forwarded to the board, however, please note that it is not policy for the board to respond to your email. If you would like, IR/CG Capital will certainly provide answers to your questions.

-Jacob Goldberger, CG Capital

Dear Jacob,

We acknowledge that the board will not answer our questions and address our concerns per policy. We do want to make sure our letter needs to also “specifically” find its way to Dr. John Scarlett as President and CEO as requested in our letter. We kindly request that you forward our original letter (addressed to Dr. Scarlett and the Board) and the below letter to Dr. Scarlett at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,


Dear Dr. Scarlett:

Congratulations for your appointment as Chairman of The Board. IR tells us the board will not respond to our questions and concerns per policy. Our position is that there are exceptions to every rule and this is an instance when an exception to every rule is most appropriate. These are trying times for Geron and the investors while the current share price signals an unfortunate fact that market does not appear to believe Imetelstat will be successfully commercialized. We expect and are seriously looking for leadership feedback on our six questions/concerns at the very least in press releases and official forums.

Sincerely,

Geron Shareholders (with substantial holdings)

Post Reply