If the lung and breast trial results underwent review for possible negative outcomes, and that forced Gern to halt the breast trials and warn on the lung trials about the suitability of imetelstadt for late stage solid Tumor cancers, doesn't that mean/imply that the same review of patients in the other two imetelstadt trials must also have occurred. And, if so, the fact that those trials were not halted (due to negative results) or warnings issued (due to weak outcomes they observed) may mean that the other trials are looking good, and hiring of new people for manufacturing quality control further supports the thesis that all looks good for some of the trials.
I agree with your train of thought and in fact emailed Anna last week about the other Imetelstat trials! I wonder if this will give impetus to conduct these periodic checks for all trials?
I have not received any sort of reply!
We don't know the reason why GERN is moving from 1.70 to 3.00 - from 3.00 to 1.20 - and finally from 1.20 to 1.80. The only thing we know is thah the stock is only bought at any price. 1 - 2 - 3 bucks is the same... the stock is only bought... So it doesn't matter the drug trials (we can't know how they are going and we are not able to make predictions - look at PCYC, no drugs in P3 and PPS has gone from 0.50 to 70 ), it doesn't matter the sale of Stem Sector.... The most important thing is the trend, the chart and the market interest. Until the stock will be bought every day we must be on the stock and play with them........ We don't know who is playing but also this thing does not matter!! Stay and play ... Stay and play!!
Yes, but you forget to mention the consistently and substantially increased trading volume for the last couple of weeks that suggests significantly increased institutional activity. If it's s,o and since institutional traders know better than retial traders, it means that something is cooking up which we retail shareholders are not yet told about. This reflects. the current management's attitude to retail investors and its coziness to Wall Street wolves.
Neither Scarlett nor Huh has been invested in the company as long as most of us on this board have been. They both are insensitive to our interest in what is going on with the company. Therefore, this policy of secrecy from long-standing retail investors, who have been with it rain or shine, is reflective of their intent which I do not like. Bottom line: They are there to reap the rewards for themselves and for their Wall Street friends. Do not forget, Huh was in the new York city for half his life and must be cozy with those Manhattan crooks and has taken over the company affairs as its Chairman of Board!! I am suspicious that that guy is trying to sell Geron assets cheaply to his acqaintances. Yes, if you're a just a trader, it's O.K. for you; but, for those of us who have been invested in the company for brightly shining days are seeing cloudy days!!
This is exactly what I had posted last week! Great.
GERN would be stupid not to looking the hematologic trials, before the CC on Monday. The company would be stupid to hire an executive VP for the pilot plant for imetelstat and GRN 1005 after the big news that Monday.
If the stem cells r/d can be sold soon and if the GRN 1005 breast data confirms the phase 1 results or pointing to the confirmation December 4, I think the PPS can advance more from here. Now the focus is more in GRN 1005.
Don't underestimate the hematologic disorder market, if imeletstat is indeed positive in this group of cancer.
In his prior job, Dr Grethlein was responsible for "planning and execution of worldwide strategy for product and portfolio development in the hematologic therapeutic area." So, why have they hired this particular expertise unless they expect to use those skills and credentials? It is clear this is a high level job getting the title of executive vp, and big bucks. That only makes sense, at this juncture, if the hematologic trials are known to be supportive of phase 3 work, and manufacturing more imetelstadt and 1005. It appears that they are preparing for eventual product launch.
Mostly agree, except I don't think we can conclude that the other trials are necessarily looking "good," only that there' are reasons to see them through at this time. I have to believe the reviews were driven by the idea of focusing limited resources on the most promising areas, which is a good management move, IMO. Also, I suppose if you have a negative to announce, better to do it early and get it out of the way.