A better comparison is the IBB. GERN tracks it pretty much perfectly for the last 6 months. There's no compelling news here, and won't be for a while, so we are just drifting with the sector average.
This is highly unlikely to be a significant issue so long as therapy does not need to be continuous. Even if Imetelstat needs to be administered in repeated courses to maintain clinical response, so long as there is a gap between them, it's highly unlikely that this mechanism will do long-term damage to the immune system (and I'd add it's far from guaranteed even if therapy *is* continuous). From first principles, any form of chemotherapy should be written off as far too horrendously damaging according to this kind of logic. We still use it, and deal with the side effects, since they generally recede post-treatment, and because it works.
Honestly, the main risk is still that the disease-modifying activity simply fails to replicate in large trials. That's what we need to be worried about.
Or they buy a pipeline before the trials are finished. A lot of noise has been made about that, and it's almost certainly a large part of why the price is where it is.
In fairness, this is a sound idea for most investments. Predicting short-term moves in the stock market is a fool's game anyway.
The odds here look quite good. If all goes well, Imet will be successfully brought to market and the share price of GERN will increase very substantially. But that won't happen tomorrow or next week or next month, and there's no telling the path we will take to ultimately get there.
As such, agonizing over small day-to-day movements is pointless. The weather is turning nice now anyway.
I'm sorry, but this simply not correct. I've presented plenty of poster data at research conferences that were not yet peer reviewed. If it is reviewed, published, and available in the literature, there's no reason to present it at a conference- anyone interested can just look it up.
Your understanding is correct. Poster data are not peer-reviewed. Oral presentation data does not need to be, although talks are often based on peer-reviewed publications in prep.
Frequently, posters or talks at scientific conferences feature data that will eventually be published- but often these sessions are used as updates on work-in-progress.
Drifting up along with the sector is still more fun than drifting down with the sector. But yeah, there's no evidence of any new data here.
What does this nonsense have to do with GERN, exactly?
It's not really so huge.
Actually, it has no more bearing on the long-term future here than did the stomach-churning drop from 5 to 2 and change a couple of months back.
GERN is just a volatile stock, prone to big moves in either direction for reasons that are often entirely unclear. I'm happy we're having a nice up day. It puts me back above my cost basis. But I'm not reading anything much into it. We're still waiting on trial results, and will be for some time yet.
Well, safety or simple lack of efficacy. The showstopper trials that have happened with Imet before were very small and lack of reproducibility in drug studies is the norm rather than the exception.
Do I think that's likely? Not in the slightest- durable remissions are extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. But we do need to be realistic about how drug development goes. The chance of failure is quite small, but it is not zero.