Sargasso, perhaps you can post your response here.
The current Alpha Exposure article is obviously written to accomplish a goal, and I despise it as I do pump pieces that also intentionally hide valuable information that might help to form a balanced view, and thus a more informed investment decision. For example, the April 17, 2018 Key Events in 2018 was used in the AE short article to make the argument J&J has moved on and is no longer interested in Imetelstat. The only thing I was hoping for in the Key Events 2018 was Imetelstat listed under Potential Clinical Data Presentations phase 2, which would mean ASH. However, Scarlett responded to Charles Duncan at the last CC when asked if IMerge data would be revealed at or before the Continuation Decision, and his response was that it would typically be preserved for a major medical conference such as ASH but not to hold your breath, the data was maturing nicely. I take this to mean it won't be ready for ASH 2018. In summary, the fact that Imetelstat didn't make Key Events 2018 is not a sign in any way that J&J has moved on. But it should have been included and discussed in recent SA pump pieces on Imetelstat.
The fact Imetelstat is listed in the Selected NME planned filings as of 2018-2021 is significant. Doesn't mean it won't be dropped from the list down the road, but logic tells me J&J would already have known last year whether or not they intend to continue developing Imetelstat. They've spent almost four years working on it. I do disagree with several people insisting because it's at the top of the list, it means it is their top oncology pick. In fact a SA article was recently written based on this very premise. It's easy enough to call J&J Investor Relations and get a real person to ask for clarification; I did. If I was writing an article on Imetelstat stating it is their top oncology pick based on the order which it appears in the most recent NME Pharmaceutical pipeline, knowing people are relying on my statements as truth, I would have first emailed investor relations (
investor@its.jnj.com) and asked for verification. They will respond, quickly.
In summary, the current Alpha Exposure article could be intelligently refuted and should be. Regardless what the author says, J&J most likely internally has made their decision based on the totality of Imetelstat data, including MF, MDS, and AML pre-clinical. For me, I still reference page 19 of the most current Needham Healthcare Conference as guidance moving forward. As Geron's CEO has said many times, the license cannot be unbundled. I heed advice from people who post infrequently but have concise, solid information coming from a place of knowledge and expertise. Many questions still exist, and likely won't be answered as quickly as we'd like, but there is solid evidence pointing to a positive Continuation Decision. Much credit to Fisher (and BP) for putting so much data (clinical trials, Abstracts, etc) in an easy to use format.