That's always my biggest question also. I don't want to be diluted to hell. Every time I bring it up I get the same answer which is the company fully believes they can make it to the end of 2025 with what they have. I was originally skeptical that they could make it that far but the 10Qs do seem to back them up as they have got their spending in check.

There is a 99% chance we experience some dilution but I previously spoke to Vera about this and he said it would be done on the back of a news release. My guess would be the final lymphoma data which shouldn't be too long. IMO, early next year at the latest but we'll see when we get the enrollment update.

If the results there are not enough to gain som major SP appreciation then the dilution will be the least of our worries.

I reached out to clarify if we would be getting data in the summer like previously stated or if it would be the "2nd half" of the year which I will generally equate to the latter half of the year. The answer was just 2nd half of the year so I will stick to my assumption that we will get lymphoma data sometime in Q4. My biggest question is if it will be interim or the final readout as I was previously led to believe we could have final data by then. We'll see I guess.

Additionally, I was told they are planning a research event sometime in July where they should provide more updates. Details on that should be provided sometime next month I would assume.

So as of now we have this supposed research event, lymphoma data, and the initiation of the Off the Shelf MT401 AML trial to look forward to for the rest of the year. Always a shot at pancreatic updates but the standard announcement on that is they are waiting for grant funds or other non dilutive funds before initiating so I won't count on that news right now

That's my fear is that they will use those two patients as a cop out. Last I spoke with Vera he said there would be a data release over summer inn addition to this 2 patient release. Technically 2nd half of the year could be summer so I hope they stick to it. I'll follow up if I get clarification.

That is the only thing I can think of. I plan on reaching out to see if I can get a clear answer but I don't see any other reason for the delay unless they completely filled the trial and are deciding to just wait until all data is available. I was previously told full trial data should be available by the end of the year.

They quietly changed data release from 1st half of the year to the 2nd half. At this point I would be surprised if they release any lymphoma data in June and even more surprised if they ever stick to their original timelines.

Lol. Not ready for that yet but I promise I will make sure you hear the call.

Nothing new which was to be expected. Just gave a recap of data we've already seen and reaffirmed the company's financial position. As of the latest release they are still on track to release lymphoma data within the next three months. Hopefully they don't release in Q2 earnings and try to pass it off as "1st half of the year" like they've done in the past.

The only real takeaways here are that Vera is still speaking highly of the lymphoma trial as we are nearing data and they have been in discussions with other pharma companies for a potential partnership. Vera's confidence has not seemed to waver and he is most certainly privy to all the data that we should be getting soon. I would have expected him to tone that down a bit if the data was looking shaky. Obviously, he could just be talking the trial up knowing that giving any hint of failure wouldn't look good but In my conversations with him in the past I don't get this vibe from him. Take that as you will. Like I've said in the past any partnership will require more data. Vera all but confirmed that in the presentation yesterday when asked about potential partnerships. Said they have talked to some other companies but they want to see more data to essentially "de-risk" any investment or partnership. Makes sense and is nothing we didn't already assume.

The lymphoma data that is coming soon seems to be the only thing we have to look forward to for a while. If data impresses the company should be able to have their path forward mapped out by the end of the year but I'm not expecting much else news this year other than that data and them initiating the MT-401 OTS trial which I don't expect to bring much interest until data starts to roll in most likely mid next year at the earliest. He mentioned the grant for the pancreatic trial as well but they don't have anything confirmed right now. If the pancreatic trial moves forward it will be with non-dilutive funding and will not effect the company's current cash runway. I will say, it is nice to see the company finally start taking their finances seriously.

All this being said if the lymphoma data is good it should warrant enough interest to at the very least keep the share price stable. We'll find out in roughly three months.

I don't believe that has anything to do with hypomethylating agents that MRKR is going to be using in combination with MT-401. Just one of many studies on new treatments.

I'm on mobile so please forgive any spelling and grammar errors.

This "update" is frustrating. They talk about how this is exciting news yet there isnt really anything new other than the changes to the MRD arm of the AML trial. I don't understand how they could say so much while saying so little. This was essentially an update on MRD with a bunch of fluff thrown in. It's honestly a joke that we waited essentially six plus months for this "news." They don't elaborate on what they are going to do about frank relapse and adjuvant groups of the AML trial and they just reiterate the same data on the one lymphoma patient they have and the fact that they are waiting on non dilutive funding before beginning the pancreatic trial. Things we already know. What about the addition of the hypomethylating agent combined with MT-401? Was that non clinical test they did last year for nothing? What are they planning with it? We were told a few times last year, albeit not via official press release, that this would be a comprehensive review of the company's portfolio to best determine which way to move forward. Comprehensive my ass. We've been saying for a while now that the focus should be on lymphoma and they are just now getting around to acknowledging that. Again, I don't understand how they can so so much while saying so little.

As of their last communications we are still expecting more lymphoma data the first half of this year so we at least have that to look forward to. If it impresses it should be enough to at least keep the share price stable and bring in some outside interest.

Sorry for the rant. I'm still optimistic here but worry the company will continue to fall into their old ways of over promising and under delivering. Id rather them just keep their mouths shut, get the damn data, and present it. I don't want any fluff PRs. They keep hiring crappy IR agencies and their current one, Tiberend Advisors, is a joke too. Hopefully they figure it out because we all know this company should be worth way more than it is currently valued at.

I expect we get the results of the company's clinical review around the time of the JP Morgan conference. I don't really expect much to come from their Non-Dilutive Funding Summit presentation though.

Obviously all a guess until the news drops though.

Of course they could use the money but how the hell do you propose they acquire that $200M? They need to give something up worth that amount which they do not have right now. How dense are you? They don't just merge the companies equally and now have $200M.

If you want me to continue this discussion you need to provide me with your proposal of how this merger would work because where they stand right now there is no feasible way to make it happen. If you can't meet this simple request then consider this discussion over.

If you aren't a shareholder of either company, like you aren't, then I can understand why you think it could be a good idea. AlloVir shareholders might like the idea because after experiencing failure they get the promising asset for dirt cheap. Marker shareholders would get the short end of the stick because the company, in the eyes of the market, is worth a considerable amount less right now than AlloVir. Either way, they are two completely separate companies going after completely different indications. No reason to combine them at this point and I don't understand why you have been so fixated on this idea. It is not going to happen. Logistically it does not make sense.

So does Vera. He literally founded both companies. We don't need AlloVir's people.


If they don't blow it. They burn cash like crazy.


Do you think AlloVir would just hand over ~$200M in cash with no compensation? A merger of the two companies would come with severe dilution to Marker shareholders because AlloVir has way more assets. It's not hard to understand.


No one cares that you like it. It's a stupid idea.

We absolutely could but the cost to do so would be too steep. We'd all be diluted into oblivion.

This would be a horrible idea. Way too many hands in the cookie jar over there that if they were to do this I am confident the Marker shareholders would end up with the shorter straw. Vera seems to have the company headed in the right direction with minimizing expenses and being cognizant of the current cash position. Best to not rock the boat trying to bail out another company when we aren't even where we should be right now.

The most logical thing I can think of that makes sense is that it's volume coming in prior to the JP Morgan conference the second week in January. I don't think we hear much from their presentation, nor do I think the topic warrants much volume but I do expect to hear something on their clinical updates.

It could also just be that the market cap is so small it's finally going up to a more reasonable level.

R.I.P

Absolutely a worthwhile place to be. Since they'll be meeting with investors I expect they'll release their business and clinical review for all us plebs too as I alluded to in a previous post. I'm looking forward to it and sure hope I am right.

Oh no! It's down 9% on low volume after previously being up over ~50%

None of Marker's trials were at MSK so it can't be Marker.

Sorry for the delayed response. I must have missed your first post.

If patients respond to the CAR-Ts then those are durable beyond 6 months. If you are talking about after relapsing from CAR-T then I'm not aware of many trials that are currently running for this indication. I'm sure there are some, I just don't know them off the top of my head.

HERE is a good write up regarding treatment post CAR-T relapse.

No, my position here is relatively small compared to my overall portfolio.

I'm with ya. I also don't want to see $3 ever again but that's where we were stuck for quite a long time. That's why I'm using it as my number to hold. If we get our trial updates and data early next year I think $3 will be a thing of the past but until then I'll continue to be skeptical. I need to see that the gains can be held.

"Slop" that's up over 80% the past week.

It just needs to hold now. It's shown that it can get a nice boost, especially on lymphoma news, but it still hasn't shown us that it can hold any gains. I'm looking for it to at least remain above the $3-$4 range but preferably higher into the next announcement.

I usually make an end of the year post and figure we are close enough so here it is. I’m going to start it off with a recap of 2023’s most important events as a lot happened that will hopefully provide a solid foundation for the company moving forward. A foundation that they seemed to have been lacking in previous years.

2023 Recap (the dates link to the PRs or SEC filings):

May 2023 - Peter Hoang “resigns” as CEO and Director. Juan Vera is appointed CEO. This move should suit the company better as Vera, being a co-founder of the company, has a vested interest to see it succeed. While Hoang came from an investment banking background, specifically mergers and acquisitions, Vera comes from a medical background and will be better suited to lead the clinical development which is where the growth will come from. I think under Hoang the company bit off a bit more than they could chew with the strong focus on manufacturing. They flew a bit too close to the sun and it didn’t quite work out.

May 2023 - Probably the biggest news of the year is the sale of the manufacturing facilities to CellReady. In addition to the ~$19M in cash from this transaction the company cut annual expenses by ~$11M. Given their relatively limited cash reserves this savings is a big deal. They believe this transaction provides them with enough cash to make it out to the end of 2025. More on this later.

May 2023 - Marker appoints Monic Stuart as Chief Medical Officer. Not the biggest news but a shake up to the management team that should be noted. I don’t know much about her but in talking to John Wilson earlier this year around the time of this announcement she was recommended by Nadia Agopyan. Not much is discussed about Agopyan but she has a solid background. I was excited when she was brought on back in 2019 and think she will be instrumental to Marker’s success going forward. For the uninitiated she came from Kite where she oversaw the global marketing authorization of Yescarta. If she thinks Stuart will make a good CMO I can get behind that. Something to watch more on this that will be an indicator of where the company stands is that Stuart was brought on in a consultant role. My understanding is that she is not the full time CMO but that will ultimately be the plan as Marker moves forward. If and when that transition happens it will be an indicator that Marker is preparing to take the next leap forward, IMO.

May 2023 - Marker reports pre-clinical data of MT-601 in lymphoma. HERE are the slides with the analysis. Up until this point we only had the BCM PI trial data to go off of and we all know that it was the most impressive of the data. What it didn’t show specifically is what this pre-clinical data does show. That MT-601 can work to control the growth of CD19 CAR resistant lymphoma cells. Obviously, this is the patient population Marker’s lymphoma trial is targeting and it is still a huge unmet need as 50% - 60% of patients treated with CD19 CAR-T relapse within the first year.

June 2023 – Marker reports MT-401 non-clinical data in AML cells after hypomethylating agent administration. HERE are the slides with the analysis. As earlier reported by the company they were not seeing the results they were looking for in the frank relapse group of the PII AML trial. I’ve said basically since the beginning that this would be the most difficult patient group to treat given the severity of their condition and the fact that by the time they get to Marker they have probably failed multiple different treatments. The addition of the hypomethylating agent shows that Marker is continuing to search for solutions to advance their therapy. Regardless, of whether it works or not in the clinic this at least shows that they aren’t just sitting back and hoping for the best. Either way, these non-clinical data do look fairly promising so it will be interesting to see how this trial moves forward. Side note, this data did get them a $2M grant from the NIH.

July 2023 - MT-401 granted Orphan Drug Designation by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Not the flashiest of news but certainly nice to have.

August 2023 – Marker announced non-clinical data of MT-401 in an Off-the-Shelf (OTS) setting. HERE are the slides with the analysis. This is one I’ve been pretty excited about since it was announced. The biggest reason being that with an OTS product patients can be dosed in roughly three days. The standard MT-401 manufacturing time is nine days which is already many times better than the CAR-Ts which take multiple weeks to manufacture and return to the patient for dosing. Three days to dosing has the potential to do wonders for patients. Especially for the MRD+ patients who are on limited time before they experience relapse.

September 2023 – Marker announces the first patient treated with MT-601 after CAR-T relapse achieved a complete response. Multiple CRs should be expected here as the BCM PI trial showed a 40% CR rate. We all know that one patient is a meaningless data point but nonetheless it is great to see a CR. Especially if you are that one patient. I look forward to seeing more.

With the recap out of the way I’d like to touch a little on where the company stands now and what I expect from them moving forward.

Current financial position:

As of the end of Q3 2023 Marker is sitting on $17.5M of cash and cash equivalents. This is obviously not a ton of cash but as previously mentioned the company thinks it will be sufficient enough to carry them to the end of 2025. This is due to mainly their unloading of the manufacturing facilities as well as all of the manufacturing staff but also their cut down of the management team. They are running a bare bones operation strictly focusing on the clinical side of things with the expectation to get the company to important inflection points, i.e. data, before they begin to ramp up operations again. To be honest this is probably how they should have been running from the beginning. I’ve been a little skeptical that they can make their cash run to the end of 2025 but the last quarterly release showed me that they are taking the necessary steps to at the very least give it a valiant effort. Net loss for Q3 2023 was $3M. That’s down from $6.9M in Q3 2022. If they continue to run a quarterly net loss of around $3M that will take them to about the middle of 2025 with their current cash. This isn’t taking into account all of their grant funding recapped below:

August 2021 $13.1M from CPRIT to support MT-401 PII trial in AML. To date Marker has received $6.9M so have $6.2M remaining.

September 2022 $2M from FDA to support MRD+ group of MT-401 PII trial in AML. To date Marker has received $200K so have $1.8M remaining.

August 2021 $2M from NIH to support development of MT-401 in AML. This is the one granted based on the non-clinical data of MT-401 with the addition of a hypomethylating agent. To date Marker has received $0 so have $2M remaining.

So, in addition to their $17.5M in cash and cash equivalents they still have $10M in grant funding. If they use their current resources wisely, they can potentially make it to the end of 2025 with their current financial position. They will be cutting it close though. With that being said, I do fully expect to see them raise cash via a secondary offering well before then. If I had to take a guess, it will come following lymphoma data. If I am correct, I hope it comes at final data which I would expect by the end of next year pending any enrollment updates.

Clinical trials (trial names link to clinicaltrials.gov):

ARTEMIS This is the MT-401 AML PII trial. This trial was designed to be and has been presented as potentially pivotal so there is a possibility with decent results we can skip a PIII trial. MT-401 also has orphan drug designation so there should be an open dialogue with the FDA which could help their chances there. I think we see some big changes to this trial with the non-clinical data showing the increased effects of MT-401 with the addition of the hypomethylating agent. I expect this trial to head in that direction. Hopefully this change brings some results in the frank relapse group as to date the adjuvant and MRD groups have been promising but the frank relapse group has shown minimal to non-existent results. To reiterate what I said earlier the frank relapse group was always going to be a tough nut to crack. The patients in the BCM PI trial failed anywhere between 4 and 10 prior lines of treatment. They are in rough shape so even if the frank relapse group can achieve minimal results, with MT-401’s safety profile, I believe it will be enough to move it forward. We will also see the addition of the OTS therapy in 2024. Not sure if it will be an added arm to the ARTEMIS trial or a completely separate trial but we’ll find out soon enough.

Recap of all AML data we know about is below:

PI - 8 active patients treated, 1PR & 1CR (The PR patient saw enough of a reduction to allow a second cell transplant). 17 adjuvant enrollees treated. I believe 15 patients with two re-enrolling if I read it correctly. 6 relapsed at a median of 9.5 months and 11 patients experienced no relapse. Of the 6 who relapsed 1 was re-enrolled into the adjuvant arm and achieved CR which remained durable and 1 was moved to the active arm and became the 1 CR from the active group referenced above. As of the posting of the results in the American Society of Hematology Blood Journal (HERE) 11 of 15 patients remained alive at a median follow up of 1.9 years post infusion which compares favorably to with HCT outcomes for risk-matched AML/MDS patients post-HCT.

PII: 11 frank relapse patients treated, 0CR. 4 MRD+ patients treated, 2 CR MRD-. 1 remained in stable disease for six months allowing for a second transplant and the final one had MRD reduced by 70% four weeks post infusion and was still being monitored as of March 2023. Also as of March 2023 11 patients have been enrolled into the adjuvant arm but are too early for evaluation.

APOLLO This is the lymphoma PI of MT-601 in patients who have failed or are ineligible to receive anti-CD19 CAR T cell treatment. This is also the trial I believe will be the biggest driver of company growth and share price appreciation. Most of the HUGE volume days have been after lymphoma news so I expect that to continue. Not a lot of info on this one as of yet but I expect final data, depending on enrollment, end of next year and early 2025 at the latest. The BCM PI included patients with both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas in both active and adjuvant settings. The APOLLO trial will specifically focus on relapse/refractory (r/r) non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and I believe only in an active setting.

Recap of all active r/r NHL data we know about is below:

BCM PI - 8 patients treated, 4 CR. Of the 4 patients treated that did not achieve CR 2 of them saw progressive disease and 2 of them moved onto other therapies while in stable disease. 3 of the 4 CRs were achieved after a length of time in stable disease longer than these 2 patients experienced prior to starting another line of therapy. If they had stayed in the trial, it’s possible they could have seen CR at some point. This data recap comes from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Journal of Clinical Oncology HERE.

APOLLO PI - ? patients enrolled and treated but will be enrolling an estimated 37 patients. 1 CR achieved 8 weeks after second infusion. No adverse events.

Pancreatic This links to the BCM TACTOPS trial. No Marker sponsored trial has begun but the IND has been cleared to begin a pancreatic trial with MT-601. PR https://ir.markertherapeutics.com/news-releases/news-release-details/marker-therapeutics-announces-fda-clearance-ind-mt-601-its-six " rel="nofollow" target="_blank" >HERE. The BCM data is minimal so I expect them to run another PI to get additional data and then advance this to PII with a partner. No timeline expectation on this. I have just always thought this would be the best trial to bring on a partner if they were interested in doing so. This is just my opinion as I believe a PII will be large and probably fairly expensive. This trial will be lottery ticket for the company. With that thought it is great to see them taking a conservative approach to it in that they are waiting to advance it pending non-dilutive grant funding. I would not be surprised to hear nothing on this trial until lymphoma advances into PII.

Recap of all active pancreatic data we know about is below:

13 patients treated, 4 ORs. 1 CR & 3PR. The CR was observed well after a CR would have been seen from chemo alone. 6 patients with stable disease, 2 of which saw reversal of tumor growth. 9 of the 13 patients exceeded historical control of overall survival. FWIW, the CR in this trial was achieved at a time well beyond where one would expect to see a CR from chemo alone.



What we have to look forward to:

DATA!!! It’s fairly clear to me that Vera has a focus on getting these trials progressing so that we can see data before needing additional cash. As such, based on previous information we were given and where the trials are currently standing, I expect plenty of data next year. Additional lymphoma data is set to be released in the first half of 2024 and as I’ve alluded to, depending on enrollment, I believe we could have the final data by years end. If not, then very early 2025. If they get or have already gotten the updates to the AML trial approved, then we should have more MRD data which I have always been excited for even though I seem to be the only one. I’ll either be a genius in holding my expectations or a dumbass but either way I think turning MRD+ patients MRD- will be a big deal. We could also be getting frank relapse data with the addition of the hypomethylating agent. Non-clinical data looked promising so if they can translate that into clinical success it should also provide a nice boost given how hard AML is to treat. Since we are looking primarily for CRs they will either happen or they won’t. Data should come relatively quick. It would be nice to get an update on the adjuvant enrollment numbers. As of March, this year it was 11 patients enrolled. Since those patients need to be dosed and then monitored for at least 12 months it is possible we see some adjuvant data by the end of 2024. This group was always going to take a bit so I won’t be surprised if we don’t though.

We also have the clinical review that was effectively promised for this year that seems will be delayed into next year. I’m giving Vera a pass on this as he is a new CEO and there have been a lot of advancements already under his watch. I don’t believe it was ever said in an official release and only alluded to in interviews. This should be a learning experience for him to be a little more careful about how he is conveying things. I did follow up with him on this a couple of times and accept his explanation. That being, with the changes they are making to the trials, specifically the AML trial, they need to make sure that all entities with any stake in them are aware of and approve of the changes being made. The AML trial has grants attached to it from three different entities so they need to ensure those entities are ok with the changes as to not put in danger the remaining grant funds. Additionally, trial changes need to be discussed and approved by the FDA. I think we all know how fast the FDA moves. Until all of these things are in place they can’t just go telling everyone about all the changes they are making. With this being said I expect the clinical review to come sooner rather than later next year. I’m looking at two timeframes. The J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference is January 8th – 11th next year. It’s the first big investment conference of the year and as they put it “connects global industry leaders, emerging fast-growth companies, innovative technology creators and members of the investment community.” If they are looking to make a splash early in the year then this is the place to do it. If not there then I would expect it to come during their annual release with is usually toward the end of March each year. I would hope this would come with a conference call and then hope those would continue on a regular basis. I did bring this up with the company and it is something I was told they are looking into bringing back.

Well, I think that’s it. Some good progress was made this year and they have some potentially major inflection points coming up next year. I will be looking to see if these bring the growth I expect them to as well as can that growth be sustained.

As always, I try my best to post factual and verifiable information with links if possible. Anything else is obviously my opinion and should be taken as such. It is always advisable to do your own DD.

Good luck out there everyone.

And you're going to continue your pathetic attempts at misleading people. Go be a clown somewhere else.

You are not reading it correctly.

Absolutely agree that MRKR should take full advantage of this. They do need data to do so though and unfortunately that is not coming until the 1st half of next year. Hopefully more info comes from the FDA investigation early next year so MRKR can maybe get their data released around the same time. Either way, regardless of the FDA investigation ton CAR-Ts, I believe MRKR's lymphoma data will be sufficient enough to see a substantial increase in market valuation.

Doesn't look like we will be getting anything by the end of the year. Last update on MRD data was that we would be getting a comprehensive readout by the end of this year but it now seems like that will be delayed. I'm going to assume that will come early next year. Lymphoma data now set to be released 1st half of next year.

So everywhere they talk about having Marker shares they are talking about shares issues to them by TPIV that just like your TPIV shares are now MRKR shares. In the court docs it explicitly stated that Caro was helping TPIV obtain financing. Not helping them with the MRKR merger FWIW.

They probably paid for this one.


I confirmed with the company they did NOT pay for this.


I don't remember this one. Link?


Health Professional Radio is an online radio promoting healthcare awareness and medical advancement. lol. I believe that's the full quote from their website. The don't exist to pump companies like you are implying.


Didn't find where it says they host sponsored stories but even if they do it does not mean that everything they do is sponsored. You think anyone that appears on a podcast paid to do so? Given the nature of this specific podcast it is more likely an invitation was extended to Vera to be on it and discuss what Marker is working on. Either way, it was extremely informative. That's what should matter.


You are working on the assumption that Marker is paying all of these companies to be featured on their platforms when ultimately we have no idea (other than the one I confirmed they did not pay for). We want to believe that Marker is the crème de la crème of cell therapy companies but the reality is they are just one of many and are still very small. They need to reach as many eyes as possible however possible and if they are paying for some of these appearances I would assume the cost to be negligible. As we all know the data will be the ultimate decider here. I was fortunate enough to be able to speak with Vera earlier this week and he seems very optimistic about the lymphoma data. I expect we have full data by the end of next year and if it can just mirror the BCM data I am confident none of these videos and "promo" pieces will be a concern to you any more.

I don’t know where this was brought up to you but this lawsuit you keep going on and on about has absolutely nothing to do with Marker. You are doing yourself and everyone else a HUGE disservice by continuing to refer to the company as MRKR/TPIV. Nothing prior to October of 2018 is fundamentally relevant at this point in time.

Rather than type a long incoherent post I am just going to quote the main points from your posts and respond to them below:

Nothing to do with Marker but just to spell it out for anyone who stumbles across your post and thinks there is something to worry about. Tapimmune was Caro Capital's client. Caro Capital essentially subcontracted the Bedford parties to do consulting work. Specifically related to helping TapImmune obtain financing. teh Bedford parties claim to have done that work but Caro never paid them. There is no issue with TapImmune OR MARKER.


The merger came together in roughly 7 months from its proposal to its announcement. So no, they did not work on the merger for 2 years. It's debatable if any of them worked on the merger at all and if they did it would have been on TapImmune's side, not Marker's. You can read the entire background of the merger HERE.


No one cares. It is completely irrelevant right now. It's done and over. Plus, this was prior to the merger. If you are going to use the history of Tapimmune to gauge your current investment you should have already sold by now.

Just to sum it up in simple terms, Caro Capital and Koch have absolutely nothing to due with Marker.

Danforth just provides business management services to smaller life sciences companies. HR services, finance & accounting services, general business operation services, etc. Nothing inherently wrong with what they do and since MRKR was trying to keep their costs down and basically went to a bare bones staff and management team the move made enough sense although I am with you in that I would have liked to read the agreement even though I figured it would never be made public.

The part that seems off is why they would cancel it so soon. It hasn't even been a full 6 months. As of Nov 17th Lurier is no longer serving as CFO but the agreement is set to cancel in January. Why not now? It just seems like there was no real reason to use Danforth's services if the contract was going to be for such a limited period of time. I guess they weren't happy with those services but regardless it's not a great look to entering a contract only to cancel it so soon. Waste of money.

I'm also not sure how Vera is going to handle all of this. He is obviously very smart and I have plenty of faith in him to run the company and handle all the science related business but I feel that now adding all the financial related business to his plate might be stretching him a bit thin.

I guess time will tell.

Agreed.

Looks like the clinical review will be in Q1 next year. Not great since we were led to believe it should have happened by now. Additionally, lymphoma data that was initially stated would be released in Q1 of 2024, then moved up to Q4 of this year, is now pushed back to 1st half of next year. Nothing about the MRD data that we were told would be available by the end of this year so I am going to tamper my expectations on that now. Especially with the given timeline shifts I'm going to assume we'll be lucky to hear anything on it this year. Overall, very underwhelming and moderately disappointing "update".

I was really hoping they would learn from past mistakes of over promising and underdelivering but here we are. At least the cash position seems to be in check. Here's to a better 2024 I guess, lol.

Well, cash and cash equivalents were $ 18,122,086 at the end of Q2 and $17,473,899 at the end of Q3. That's obviously not their full financial picture but they conserved their cash so far.

Total operating expense for the quarter was $3,457,652 which is half of what the operating period was from this same time frame last year and ~$1M less than last quarter.

Hopefully they keep this financial responsibility up.

I'm no medical expert but this seems to be just another CD19 CAR-T albeit with some upgrades. Even though they are treating patients who were relapse/refractory with 2nd gen CAR-T, just like MRKR, they still required CD19 expression as a criteria for enrollment. Multi-TAA does not require CD19 expression. This study also seems to still show some of the adverse events traditionally seen with CAR-T treatment. We all know where Multi-TAA stands here. One thing this specific CAR-T has over the early ones is the manufacturing time has been significantly reduced. Either way, it seems this is an attempt to improve on existing CAR-T which is fine but it seems to still be showing a few issues.

I expect Marker's lymphoma data to be similar to this study you posted. I believe the PI had a 40%CR rate so with the improvements that were made hopefully that can be increased. These are both small trials so more data is needed but everything is currently tracking in a positive direction.

Regardless, the fact still remains that most patients relapse after treatment with CAR-T. It's great to see the therapy advancing and there will always be competing therapies but I think there is plenty of room in the space for Marker to operate.

If they are going to run any combination trial the checkpoint inhibitors make a lot sense. For a while it seemed like Merck was providing Keytruda to any small bio that wanted to run a combo trial. Issue being they were just providing Keytruda and no additional resources so it was still on the other company to fund the trial. Right now Marker does not have the funds to run another trial so without additional financial backing it's going to be a tough task. They're running bare bones right now, or at least should be (we'll find out in a couple of weeks), just to get to some major inflection points before they run out of cash and hopefully with no more dilution until we get a substantial increase in share price.

On a separate note, I received some additional clarification on the clinical review delay. We all know that they received ~$17M in grant money from different entities. Since they are basically restructuring their trials they are wanting to run everything by those entities as to not put the grant money in jeopardy before they present the review. Take this for what it's worth as they already made it sound like we should have had this review by now.

It will continue to drift lower on this anemic volume until they have solid data or the small cap bio market picks up. It's been getting crushed recently. Either way, the company said they would have the data from two trials by the end of the year. We'll see if it is enough.

Depending on how much cash they burned in Q3, and I would hope not very much at all, $2.25 is roughly their cash value. Not a horrible buy if the SP continues to slip.

He replied to my email earlier this month. I inquired about a few things one being the strategic review and for what its worth I received a copy and paste of the answer he provided you a couple months ago. I've probably sent two emails the whole year though. Maybe you are sending too many? He obviously has a lot to do so I'm not surprised some emails go unanswered. My personal opinion is the more you send the more likely they will be ignored. Especially if they contain the same questions over and over again.

As far as major news goes, we already know roughly what to expect by the end of the year.

1. Strategic review. (Barring any delay from the FDA as this is what I believe is holding up the review since it will involve changes to existing trials the FDA needs to approve them. We can't get the update with out that)
2. MRD data.
3. Lymphoma data.
4. Potential pancreatic trial grant. (This doesn't really have a date on it but it was referenced earlier this year)

Anything outside of that would be a surprise and probably unlikely. I also wouldn't consider any of the above major news. We'll see how this all shakes out.