Fri, Nov 28, 2014, 3:42 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed early today

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MACK) Message Board

jonesallen234 8 posts  |  Last Activity: Nov 20, 2014 4:14 PM Member since: Jul 7, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • jonesallen234 by jonesallen234 Nov 20, 2014 4:14 PM Flag

    Did I miss something in EPZM's data released today? To me it looked like EPZM just demonstrated proof of concept with an epigenetics drug.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • The rindo plus avastin v. avastin result gives me great confidence that REACT IV will produce a statistically significant result for OS survival regardless of PFS... below is why?

    In REACT IV, patients will be randomized to two groups surgery/resection followed by temozolomide and rindo v. surgery/resection and temozolomide alone. Patients will be treated until progression. The sole second line therapy approved after progression for glioblastoma is avastin. The study simply will morph into REACT II which we already know the result, an increase in overall survival when avastin is combined with rindo v. avastin alone.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    CLDX shares cheap relative to results

    by jonesallen234 Nov 14, 2014 4:32 PM
    jonesallen234 jonesallen234 Nov 14, 2014 4:38 PM Flag

    Also this result give pretty strong evidence that React III will be positive as well.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Here is my analysis of the price action so far. There is clear confusion about the overwhelmingly positive study results due to the inclusion of avastin refractory patient arm. I for one am not worried and here is the reason. That an immunotherapy does not work very well in immuno-comprised heavily pretreated avastin refractory patients is kind of a dah moment. CLDX structured group 2 and group 2C because of the very fact that they knew results were not likely to be very significant.

    The more important group (the clinically relevant group from the perspective of rhino) is avastin naive patients. In which even though this study was not powered for statistically significants OS was overwhelmingly positive. Yikes, if you happen to miss that result in the data.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    This science is scary good

    by alleg180 Oct 29, 2014 8:48 PM
    jonesallen234 jonesallen234 Oct 30, 2014 4:16 PM Flag

    There are several public companies in the gene therapy space that I find interesting in addition to BLUE. QURE would have a much higher valuation if it were a company in the US. They have the only approved gene therapy treatment and begin selling at the end of the quarter. People have overlooked that fact that QURE can deliver AAV to liver cells in vivo without causing and increase in liver enzymes (I am not aware of any other gene therapy company having done that). One time curative therapies to the liver in vivo puts QURE on the same level as ALNY. Although they need more safety and efficacy data before I think ALNY would start to worry.

    The other company I like is AAVL.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • jonesallen234 by jonesallen234 Oct 24, 2014 1:53 PM Flag

    Saying QURE is comparable to BLUE because they are gene therapy companies is like saying SGEN is just like PDLI because they both make antibody. They are two entirely different technologies with entirely different approaches going after entirely different targets. SGMO and QURE are more comparable with regard to their technologies and targets. For which QURE is definitely undervalued when compared to SGMO.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Fireside chat with CEO great watch

    by biglabowski99 Oct 19, 2014 9:57 PM
    jonesallen234 jonesallen234 Oct 23, 2014 4:31 AM Flag

    QURE and BLUE have data in hand demonstrating they can increase quantity and double to triple potency over their first generation products. Most companies have not even produced efficacy data yet. Both are within a year of bringing 3rd generation products to the clinic (BLUE with the Pregenen acquisition and QURE with the 4D license of synthetic AAV).

  • Reply to

    Fireside chat with CEO great watch

    by biglabowski99 Oct 19, 2014 9:57 PM
    jonesallen234 jonesallen234 Oct 23, 2014 4:23 AM Flag

    I think you have vastly overestimated the amount to which big pharma has completely neglected and abandoned the gene therapy space. This may be a bit of a precocious statement but, "no big pharma company has the expertise nor capabilities to manufacture commercial grade lentiviral vectors or AAV." Gene therapy has been neglected too long by big pharma. Every single big pharma company looking to get back into gene therapy has had to license product for a small biopharma company.
    1. BIIB and Shire licenses ZFN from SGMO
    2. Baxter bought Chatham for Hemo B.
    3. NVS had to license AAV technology from OXB.L because they cannot efficiently manufacture commercial grade AAV for their oncology program.
    4. GSK signed a license with Adaptimmune.
    5. Bayer signed a license with Dimension.
    6. QURE beat out several big pharmas looking to acquire a small company doing cardiovascular gene therapy.
    7. CELG has a license with BLUE for CART.
    The limiting factor in gene therapy is not efficacy. It really comes down to cost metric (can you efficiently manufacture gene therapy products at commercial level). That is why my two picks to dominate the gene therapy space is QURE and BLUE. They are at the cusp of commercially producing their products.while most companies have not even started to think about anything other than proof of therapeutic concept (i.e. NVS, KITE, SGMO).

MACK
9.16-0.60(-6.15%)Nov 28 1:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.