BlackM---You are wrong, I believe, about JNJ not telling us about IMET progress (or lack of) in the worldwide trials. You may choose to believe that Scarlett made this up (positive feedback from JNJ), but I believe (as you seem to) that he takes his lead in material from JNJ, and the heavy lifting will be done by Tefferi (Mayo & Janssen) at ASCO.
I believe that "positive feedback" means that the trials are going as planned, with confirmation of the Mayo MF trials by the Janssen MF trials, and expanding trials for MDS and AML. Comparing IMET with JAK would logically use all data available.
From Janssen (JNJ)--- "We’re very encouraged by the caliber of investigators participating in the studies and feedback from them has been positive."
I am sure this quote will be discussed. Thank you jkokao. The expansion of the blood cancer trials (MF, MDS, AML) all indicate positive results.
In addition, JNJ told us that they have at least 10 potential blockbusters in their drug pipeline. Imetelstat is getting the most attention, with the most trials.
There is a dark side (market forces) and a bright side (cancer treatments, remissions and cures) in Geron's near term future that are completely dependent on JNJ and their worldwide IMET trials.
The markers and indicators (ODD, NEJM, ASH, AACR, ASCO) are clear as the trials expand in scope and depth. The "dots" are all coming together with continuing good reports and no negatives as IMET goes from single use to various combinations and cocktails. The research is just beginning, but IMET has already demonstrated a good safety profile, remissions and cures (ET, MF, MDS, AML pending) as a vital part of the cancer-moonshot. IMET is transformative (JNJ).
We will all be listening to "Chippy" for clues. Geron is JNJ's junior partner, and JNJ is in control. Tefferi speaks for JNJ and Mayo Clinic, a very high level of credibility.
BlackM---I had to look this up (shelf). Do you have any evidence?
"Shelf registration or shelf offering or shelf prospectus is a type of public offering where certain issuers are allowed to offer and sell securities to the public without a separate prospectus for each act of offering. Instead, there is a single prospectus for multiple, undefined future offerings. The prospectus (often as part of a registration statement) may be used to offer securities for up to several years after its publication. A shelf registration statement is a filing with the SEC to register a public offering, usually where there is no present intention to immediately sell all the securities being registered. A shelf registration statement permits multiple offerings based on the same registration. A shelf registration can be used for sales of new securities by the issuer (“primary offerings”) resales of outstanding securities (“secondary offerings”) or a combination of both."
My premise has been that IMET is a transformative cancer medicine. That is what JNJ says. I will stay with GERN long term, unless Dr. Tefferi turns negative at ASCO concerning IMET's patient needs and uniqueness in treating blood cancer.. The "ride" is very bumpy, and Geron's PPS is very discouraging.
Some say that there are "leaks" that IMET performed under expectations in the JNJ worldwide trials. I can find no such news. I don't believe that Tefferi would go negative at ASCO, but I only know what I read and hear.
What is Dr. Tefferi going to say about IMET vs. JAK? What is he going to say about the old trial data (Mayo Clinic) and the new trial data (Janssen/JNJ)? What is he going to say about IMET's potential? The markets seem to believe that there is negative IMET news ahead. No one has even suggested that.
Dr. Tefferi maintains his position at Mayo Clinic, but also has an IMET investigative position at Janssen.
Dr. Tefferi is the "father" of IMET. IMET is his "baby" twice (Mayo & Janssen). A comparison of IMET and JAK is coming at ASCO. Hopefully he will go beyond that and talk about the safety, effectiveness and potential of IMET.
Dr. Tefferi at ASCO: Direct comparison of IMET with JAK. Does he know? Will JNJ continue their trials?
I don't have the time to find the old posts from Geron. Dr. Tefferi joined the staff of Geron when Geron got into trouble with the FDA (the famous and unnecessary liver holds), and used his Mayo Clinic data to get all FDA holds lifted. He wore two hats at the time--Mayo & Geron.
When Janssen (JNJ) partnered with Geron, he switched his Geron hat to Janssen as principle investigator. He still wears two hats--Mayo & Janssen. I have no idea what, if any, compensation that he gets for the 2nd (Janssen) hat.
Dr. Tefferi is Mayo and Janssen. Janssen is a fully owned subsidiary of JNJ. Geron is a partner of JNJ. They are all tied together in a neat knot. ASCO is coming (early June), and Dr. Tefferi is presenting.
"Chippy" certainly knows the IMET results to date, but all important announcements will be made by the "father of Imetestat" and principle investigator (Mayo & Janssen), Dr. Tefferi. "Chippy" is a non-factor, at the moment, as an information source.
ODD status was applied for and granted to Janssen (JNJ), not Geron. Janssen (JNJ) has/will apply for all IMET approvals (FDA and worldwide). Geron was an important factor in the development of IMET, especially in the ET phase. Mayo Clinic was the decisive factor in the MF phase. Janssen (JNJ) is in control of the worldwide phase for all blood cancers now, and all cancers in the future (including cancer stem cells, solid tumors, cancer vaccines, etc.). Geron's PPS is a derivative of Janssen's IMET successes.
This is also my belief. IMET works (ET, MF, MDS, AML) and has a good safety profile. Also IMET has potential as a cancer vaccine.
I a fully confident that Dr. Teferri has all of the information (good, bad or indifferent) about IMET that is available, and he is cleared by JNJ to present properly. A "principle investigator" is not a "principle owner". Geron is the IMET owner, and JNJ is in control.
Dr. T wears 2 hats (one at Mayo Clinic and one at Janssen). He is a Janssen person, and IMET is "his baby".
Dr. Tefferi is slated to compare IMET with JAK. There are two parts to that comparison:
1. Symptoms (spleen, general improvement)
2. Disease modification (remissions, chronic cures, full cures)
I will stay with Geron, if I still have a "warm feeling" about IMET after his presentation. I see no negatives, at the moment, that would change my mind. JNJ (Janssen) is making a very serious, worldwide attempt to get IMET fully approved. Dr. Tefferi has principle investigator roles at both Mayo and Janssen. In many ways IMET is "his baby".
There is more at stake. Trump would damage our NATO allies, and risk wars with China (trade and real). Trump, as many have said, is a loose cannon and basically dangerous. Hillary is the better choice.
First we need to know JNJ's conclusions about IMET and their continuing trials (MF, MDS, AML in the wings). Then we can discuss the implications for Geron. We have positive hints, but no clear and definitive statements from JNJ that would spill over into Geron's PPS. Dr. Tefferi at ASCO should help (IMET compared with JAK).