Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
EXCELLENT analysis of the unsubstantiated, completely rhetorical complaints of certain cynical posters.
I like how you call out their baseless, ridiculous statements and just get more nonsense, baseless, unsupported rhetoric in response.
For example, asking them WHERE they get the numbers to support the childishly ridiculous "99% of publicly traded biotech is just a way to offload BP's cost for research?" ( - baseless, emotion-driven conspiracy theory "thinking.")
AND THEN their response: "Lots of rants. Can't read. OK then make it 75%...50%." . They STILL respond with NOTHING but more baseless, ridiculous estimates - nothing to substantiate their rhetoric. Oh, but how generous of them to lower their completely nonsensical, baseless estimate randomly to "75% or 50%." And we are supposed to take this seriously???
And then MORE complete nonsense like:
1) Consider this.. MRKR.. founded in 1992... in 30 years, 3 decades, has done nothing of outcome value.
2) I think many in MRKR are there for the paid research
3) Phantom became honest with himself and abandoned his posting position.
Gorlish, you're absolutely correct that a lot can go on in the body to alter the effectiveness of any therapy.
A perfect example is check point inhibition - where regulatory T cells and macrophages inhibit the immune cells from attacking the cancer. That's why I'd love to see collaborative clinical studies with our therapy and check point inhibitors other companies are having some success with. But such collaborations might depend on MRKR having good results in PII studies before other companies will team up with us (just speculation).
The dose dependent response data in slide 29 does give them hope. But really it's the overall improvements in the new T cell production process are the key to the optimism:
1) the 9 day production improvements, bc this shorter window enables MRKR to find and treat relapsing patients MUCH earlier using the up to 1 million-fold more sensitive method of MRD+/- criteria compared to using Frank Relapse (%5 circulating blast/stem cells, changes in other white blood cell counts - at this point the cancer is getting well established again, and likely has produced more immune-escaping clones by the time you see these gross signs of relapse under a microscope). This is critically important because they can catch and treat the relapse before it becomes insurmountable, so are much more likely to produce MRD negative CR.
2). IIRC the new T cell production process produces ~6000 vs 4000 antitumor T cell clones per batch over the old Baylor method. So that's a 50% increase in diversity of unique T cells to attack the cancer over the old protocol.
3) Higher specificity for tumor cell antigens in the new process over the old Baylor approach.
4) using the 100-200Mil T cell dose vs 50Mil max T cell dose of the old Baylor protocol.
I see MRKR had some VERY cool new data presented last week at the ISCT Annual Meeting.
Specifically, the new > Long Term < culture system developed by MRKR that revolutionizes in vitro studies of T Cell interactions with 3D tumors.
Between that and MRKR's newly developed automated, closed T Cell purification system, I understand better the $8-9 million deal between MRKR and Wilson Wolf last month. The deal in which John Wilson, CEO of Wilson Wolf and co-founder of MRKR said will " enhance our effort to de-risk the cell and gene therapy industry as a whole.”
------------------------------------------
Institutions are starting to report 1st Q holdings. The early Nasdaq data shows that two institutions sold out, 3 added to their positions, and 10 made no change.
------------------------------------------
Micro: I read your post - you are correct my friend. It's not worth responding to the constant whimpers and moans. Especially when it's clear that they don't understand the science and that they are surprised to find that there is competition.
Old news. I brought up companies on this board in that space before.
I'm not really too worried about a reverse split, maybe more like mildly concerned (and annoyed).
As PL points out, the timeline is more or less forcing MRKR to ask for permission now, to let the BOD decide if a RS is necessary at some point between now and mid-1stQ next year.
MRKR is incorporated in Delaware, and while there is no law that says a RS requires a shareholder's vote, every company incorporated in Delaware does it, and it's more or less expected. So no matter how unlikely and remote is the possibility of needing a RS, they need to address that possibility now.
This might sooth the nerves of institutional investors too, knowing the BOD makes any decisions about a RS without needing to call a special meeting to mollify and convince disgruntled shareholders. They don't want to hold a delisted stock.
And the wide range of possible RS ratios ("1:3 to twelve 1:12") suggests to me that a RS is not "in the works" so to speak, but just a possibility sometime over the next year.
----------------------------------------------------
And PL is right about the sector rotation. The NYSE Biotech index has been in a downtrend since 1stQ last year and all of the other biotechs I watch have been hit pretty hard too.
----------------------------------------------------
As for data, from "Milestones for 2022" in the presentation will see the preliminary readout of Group 2 patients this Q, and they said they expect to, "Complete dose escalation for cohorts IV and V in Phase 2 AML trial using the new manufacturing process . . . by Q3."
And Cohorts 4 and 5 are getting the 100mil and 200mil cell doses of the new and improved T Cells using the new 9 day manufacturing process.
I have low expectations for the Group 2 readout this Q, but high expectations for good news about Cohorts 4 and 5 sometime in 3rd o 4th Q.
Clinical trial update: Sixteen institutions are now participating in the AML P2. IIRC, that's up from 12 a few months ago.
I'm invested in MRKR based on the FA, but I still like to follow the TA.
1. I'd prefer to not see us back below the 20 day SMA, but at least it's on low volume. (well below the 10 day and 3 month Daily averages 0f 659k and 753K.
2. And on the Daily chartit is interesting and a positive indication to see that the CMF is still positive after thee low volume drop below the 20 day SMA the past couple days (and that after today it actually tipped up).
3. On the Weekly chart the CMF is low and rounding up (buy territory) while the MFI is poking about 20 (buy territory)
NASDAQ Short interest as of 3/15 down here is only 2,090,666 shares, or ~3.5% of the float (this includes /41,843 shares in Dark Pool volume.) Currently that is about 4 days to cover with the average daily volume of 535,494 shares (again, as of 3/15).
Institutional Holdings (as of 12/31)
Institutional Ownership 31.83 %
Total Shares Outstanding (millions) 83
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More sellers than buyers, but more shares bought than sold:
Increased Positions 21 2,364,770
Decreased Positions 35 1,764,857
Held Positions 18 22,315,540
Total Institutional Shares 74 26,445,167
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7.6x more shares bought for New positions vs Sold out after the for 4Q plunge.
New Positions 12 2,025,779
Sold Out Positions 8 264,888
You don't gotta worry about me
Micro, re. "Question is can they hold out on doing a dilution and hope for good data readout before the end of 2022?"
As we all know, sometime this Q we get the preliminary readout on Group 2, Active Disease - but that a subset of Group 2 using the the old protocol (using the50 million cell doses). I'm hopeful, but bc this is the hardest group to treat I'm not expecting any earthshattering news.
BUT . . . but then, based on the expected "Milestones" from the Feb 16 Update, (see slides 31 and 40), MRKR expects to:
Complete dose escalation for cohorts IV and V in Phase 2 AML trial under new manufacturing process in Q3 2022
Wtf Chuck ??? I still don't get why the CFO is doing this presentation . . . The "WTF Chuck" part is concerning the bold for the description for today's talk:
TapImmune Inc. is a leader in the development of novel immunotherapies for cancer, with multiple Phase 2 and Phase 1b/2 clinical studies currently ongoing for the treatment of ovarian and breast cancer. The company’s peptide- or nucleic acid-based immunotherapeutic products comprise multiple naturally processed epitopes (NPEs) designed to comprehensively stimulate a patient’s killer T-cells and helper T-cells, and to restore or further augment antigen presentation by using proprietary nucleic acid-based expression systems. This unique approach can produce off-the-shelf T-cell vaccine candidates that elicit a broad-based T-cell response and can be given without respect to HLA type. The company’s technologies may be used as stand-alone medications or in combination with other treatment modalities.
"I have no idea where you're going with this??"
That was sort of the point :). I too have no idea where we're going. Hence "pick one, any one" of the asymptotes (up/down/flat) that the share price might take as we get data later this year.
But for now, I'll take Monty Python's advice and look on the bright side of life for the next 6 months or so.
I too hope the optimism proves correct :). The changes they made are substantial and should only make the therapy more effective.
As for the funding part - I guess the big questions are: 1) when do they need to go after the funding, 2) what is the share price then and 3) what data can we expect to see that could alter the share price between now and then?
For #1, in the 3Q Report in November they said they had enough cash to make it into Q1, 2023 (good thing they got the $13.1 million grant for the AML P2 in August from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas!).
For #3, Data betwixt now and then - according to the Feb 16 Update, slides 31 and 40 we: a)__should get a preliminary top-line readout on the Active Group using the old protocol sometime soon (Q1/Q2), and b)__ hopefully have some data for the 6 patients in the cohorts testing the higher cell doses using the 9-day manufacturing process by Q3.
For #2, the share price when they go for more funding: I have low expectations for the top-line Active Group data using the old protocol, but I have high expectations for 9-day, higher cell dose process which we should hear about in Q3/4.
< If > the results are impressive for the new high dose, 9-day process, they should be able to easily get funding and at a "substantially improved" share price from here (ffs almighty).
dagnabbit, missed time to edit it.
For you learningcurve2020 <:O
Pick an an asymptote, any asympote ~~~~~~?
-------------------
edit. That is an interesting dip in the curve last March.
I call shenanigans.
Is that curve getting steeper Mr. Pessimist? lol.
"I forget all the rules but at some point institutions will be forced to bail unless management can get this stock heading north. I'm worried they'll take the lazy / calculated / disastrous for retail-common way out and volunteer to move to the OTC. I've seen it play out a few times and it's not pretty."
I was thinking the same about the institutional support as of 12/31/21, staying the same.
With more shares increased than sold, and the huge difference in new positions over sold out (~6x difference).
And I haven't checked carefully, but the bigger holders and "smarter" institutions seemed to have held (correct me if I am wrong :).
Insiders loaded up in March 2021 around $1.75 - on that "interesting" little dip in the chart.
Learningcurve, Re. Ken Dart ( = Eastern Capital Limited = Portfolio Services Ltd):
The last Form 4 filed by Ken (Nov 2020) and the last SC 13D/A filed by him in (March 2021) shows he still owns ~3.9mill/4.77% shares of MRKR.
It looks like he sold 500K shares in March 2021 (the Form 4 shares owned + warrants - 500K = form 13D shares owned). He probably handed some of his shares personally to all the insiders who bought at that time - he probably handed the shares across the bar to Peter et. al. and bought a round of drinks (I wonder if his selling is maybe part of the reason for the slew of insider buying at the same time - so the market wouldn't get spooked?).
-------------------------
From that Form 4:
Eastern Capital Limited is an investment entity that owns the securities reported on this Form 4. Portfolio Services Ltd. is a holding company which owns all of the outstanding stock of Eastern Capital Limited. Kenneth B. Dart is the beneficial owner of all of the outstanding stock of Portfolio Services Ltd.
I wanted to edit this to say I could just be talking myself down, deeper into the MRKR rabbit hole . . . so, fwiw, and grain of salt, etc.
Hopefully we're just late out of the gate (for a lot of us longs), but win the race.
Thanks Micro.
PL, "I have a lot of mixed feelings right now,"
Lmao, don't we all. The delay bites, but I think the decision by MRKR scientists, advisors, and mgmt to stop, refine production and restart in Q3 the AML P2 was absolutely the right decision.
I don't think the importance of the new, optimized production can be overstated.
The increased T Cell dose (200 million cells!) with better T cell diversity and antigen specificity is huge.
But being able to decrease production time to 9 days so as to use of Minimal/Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) testing Techniques could be a real a game changer.
Using MRD techniques like flow cytometry, PCR and Next Generation Sequencing lets you find the needles in haystacks - 1 in 100,000 cells by flow cytometry and PCR, and 1 in a MILLION cells by next gen sequencing.
That's a quantum leap from using "Frank Relapse" with microscopy of biopsied bone marrow or peripheral blood looking for "blast"/stem cell count >5%, decreased neutrophils and platelets in peripheral blood, extramedullary tumors, etc.
Using MRD techniques, MRKR can better monitor relapse of patients in Arm B (no intervention/Standard of Care) Group 1, and have a MUCH better chance of catching relapse very early, long before they hit the obvious Frank Relapse stage. Then they can be switched to Group 2, and because it is caught so early, these patients have a MUCH better chance of becoming "MRD Negative," and a better chance of having CR.
The importance of this can't be overstated - cancer cells tend to become prone to making more mutations, which makes the cancer "heterogenous" - i.e. made up of many more different clonal populations. Catching relapse before the surviving cancer cells can grow and diversify should help prevent "immune escape."
The improved product and production time helps explain why they want to go after pancreatic and lymphoma right away. They're excited - they're not just throwing feces at the wall hoping something sticks (as I feared at first :).
And the improved therapy is more likely to be useful for pre-transplant patients, if the AML is diagnosed early enough with better screening, as the MRD +/- criteria get ironed out by science/ the FDA.
"Measurable residual disease (MRD) is an important biomarker in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that is used for prognostic, predictive, monitoring, and efficacy-response assessments.
"I tried to post"
Yes, and you did it! Lol, Jk, seriously, I'm glad you included the important part here.
-------
"that PL posted an interesting message on investor village.."
I gotta admit. My feelings are hurt. I feel unviolated. lol. . . . I'll have to go read it if I can find it. But first I will get toasted.
Man I pray to all the gods real and imagined the CFO doesn't shit the bed next week.
C'mon, is this kind of nonsense remark really necessary?
TBH, I don't get this either, and don't like it. Peter is an excellent speaker and he knows the science inside out.
I'm considering buying more bc after listening to the last call a second time I'm very much convinced they made the right decision delaying and changing the AML P2.
Tbh, I think the FDA Hold and COVID delays may have been fortuitous, a blessing in disguise - this new P2 protocol is MUCH more likely to be successful imo.
Just wanted to say I finally had a chance to listen to the Update Conference Call and was really very impressed. But the delay still sucks a bag of dicks :).
I still think they are doing the right thing delaying the P2 study and modifying the protocol.
There were some mildly "sketchy" things, but I have to listen again and dig into the Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) stuff a LOT more to try to get a better understanding of wtf is going on (holy feces, AML is a complicated disease).
Can you go over the " lazy / calculated / disastrous for retail-common way out and volunteer to move to the OTC" part again?
I remember you said you discussed this a month ago, but I forgot and I have not had time to go back and find it.
TIA!
Micro, you asked: "How many already relapsed frank patients have others "cured"?"
This article from 2013 says:
Chemotherapy alone generally produces only short-term responses in patients relapsing post-transplant, and the best results have been achieved when a donor lymphocyte infusion or a second allogeneic transplant is performed to consolidate a chemotherapy-induced response. ____ Results are very dependent on patient selection.
Our study suggests that almost 80% of AML patients can undergo salvage therapy following relapse after front-line HDCT/autologous HCT.
Allogeneic HCT can provide cure in one third of patients relapsing after front-line HDCT/autologous HCT.
I was thinking the same about the institutional support as of 12/31/21 staying the same.
With more shares increased than sold, and the huge difference in new positions over sold out (~6x difference).
And I haven't checked carefully, but the bigger holders and "smarter" institutions seemed to have held (correct me if I am wrong :).
Insiders loaded up in March 2021 around $1.75 - on that "interesting" little dip in the chart.
Institutional Holdings Incoming -
Many as of 12/31/2021
72 Institutional Holders
25,998,314 Total Shares Held
Label Value
Institutional Ownership 31.29 %
Total Shares Outstanding (millions) 83
Total Value of Holdings (millions) $12
ACTIVE POSITIONS HOLDERS SHARES
Increased Positions 19 1,917,917
Decreased Positions 35 1,764,857
Held Positions 18 22,315,540
Total Tute Shares 72 25,998,314
--------------------------
ACTIVE POSITIONS HOLDERS SHARES
New Positions 10 1,578,926
Sold Out Positions 8 264,888
Oh and re. "They changed the active group design and want to use their new manufacturing process and are running small dose escalation groups before they proceed."
Well looking on the Bright Side of Life, maybe we will get a very pleasant surprise announcement yet this year on results of this change.
So until then, I'm crossing fingers and toes, on my cats, for good luck.
Thank you!!! Omg, here I took a half dozen nitro-under-the-tongue doses for nothing. Oh well, I could use some severe hypotension today anyway.
If everything works out these could be good improvements but they chose a horrible time to do it. Long term this should provide better results in the trial but short term they seem to have screwed us all.
Holy funk Batman - they delayed the trial ?!?!?! Did they say why? Or is this like the FDA Reagent Hold "Mystery" - maybe we need to hire Scooby-Doo and those meddling kids to see if we can get some answers.
"Dear Potential Clinical Trial Hospital Sites,
Please note we are not gonna start/continue the Group 1 Adjuvent trial until, oh, well, were not sure. We hope that when we get our fking shit together we will have Happy News and that you will be willing to rejoin our efforts then.
Your's Truly,
Don and Clair, The Maids in the Waiting Room
I have not had time to listen to the update, let alone digest it, and really have not had the time to keep up much at all the past few months so forgive me if I am missing something, and pls clarify any misunderstandings (TIA if you do). I am not trying to muddy the waters :).
This is kind of half-assed, but my brain is foggy and I just want to get these random thoughts flying around my head out there before my head turns into a tornado of pieces of paper with random notes flying around in my noggin.
-------------------
I have a lot of technical questions that could only be addressed by talking directly to the scientists involved, which will never happen simply bc of my health status right now, even if they were willing to meet with me for a discussion.
1. On the positive side, I am glad they are expanding the antigen mix, but I am wondering why they waited this long (there might be very good reasons). The "off the shelf" program sounds very good.
2. I really only held out hope for good initial results for the Group 1 (Adjuvant/in remission post transplant). --> Did they update enrollment data for this group - or update the number of clinical sites (from the current 12 out of the target of 20???)?
Also, it will take longer to get meaningful results for this Groupe 1 arm of the the trial vs Group 2 Actives, so we could suffer more until we get some preliminary results from Group 1 (Also - are they still planning on a top line read out for Group 2 this Q1 - slide 37 - from the Jan 22 Corporate presentation - (I saved the link, but it seems to have been removed from the site - I might be mistaken and just missed it, but it was still listed under corporate presentations on their homepage within the past couple weeks iirc - why gone now?).).
3. I had very low expectations for these first updates this year on Group2 Actives bc of the weak response in the P1 trial. BUT I had some hope due to the improved manufacturing process, with it's improved T-cell profile and better profile for tumor antigen recognition (slide 32 and 33). Hopefully they'll have better results for the top line read out for the entire Group 2 - which again, should be reported this 1st Q).
4. About the choice for AML as the first MRKR sponsored clinical trial: from the Jan 22 Corporate presentation, slide 13: "In the Clinical landscape in Lymphoma program is complicated due to approved CD-19 CAR T." The data presented for the P1 clinical trial for lymphoma looked very impressive and I wonder why they chose to do the AML P2 first vs the lymphoma for this initial trial - but are now going for the lymphoma trial next year? Again, there might be a very reasonable explanation that I am just not aware of (and lack the time to go back and listen to try to fish it out).
5. It will be interesting to see the updated change in institutional holdings. But that will not include the selling since January. I'm really wondering if the selling after yesterday's update is being bought by institutions who might have refrained from buying until now bc they expected weak results from the initial reports for the Group2 Actives (based on the relatively weak P1 trial results), so expected retailers would throw in the towel, and they could buy now after the last of the "weak hands" give up?.
6. The selling after the CC in June when we were at $3.39 suggested to me that institutions lost patience when the enrollment data seemed weak (justmy wild assed guess), which to me suggested a lukewarm response from, and maybe lack of confidence by, potential trial site hospitals. Again, in this update they did not mention enrollment, or addition of clinical sites, which, again, if this is lagging suggests to me the possibly of a lack of confidence by the AML Clinical community in MRKRs tech. I could be WAY off base on this speculation.
Thanks. I hope this was at least semicoherent.
Thank you Micro for your posts like this one (and others). It saves me time and energy trying to articulate my own feelings. And frequently gives me a giggle (giggling with you, not at you).
On days like this I play this over and over. . . and over again.
"You see what a little positive pressure can do."
I'm not sure what "positive pressure" you are talking about here, and/or the source of the positive pressure, that caused the conference call update to occur.
In any case, whatever the positive pressure is that you are talking about, the source of that pressure should keep in mind that ideal conference calls are governed by pretty much the same rules as the Ideal Gas Law ___ i.e. real gases tend to perform ideal gas behavior at low pressure and relatively high temperature.
And then of course, there's the volume of the conference room and the number of participants that has been taken into account.
God forbid we see a repeat of the Black Hole Presentations of last fall!
"I want to see a clear and meaningful presentation . . . Demand timelines and accountability.
I think that is a very reasonable expectation, especially from a shareholder's POV.
But maybe Peter is a bit more like Seymour Cray, in which case your expectations might not be reasonable (see below)? If so, I hope Peter also shares Cray's hobby of visiting with elves while building tunnels under his home: "While I'm digging in the tunnel, the elves will often come to me with solutions to my problem."
-----------------
" . . . when Cray was asked by management to provide detailed one-year and five-year plans for his next machine, he simply wrote, "Five-year goal: Build the biggest computer in the world. One year goal: One-fifth of the above."
And another time, when expected to write a multi-page detailed status report for the company executives, Cray's two sentence report read: "Activity is progressing satisfactorily as outlined under the June plan. There have been no significant changes or deviations from the June plan"
-----------------
((sometimes I am certain that Douglas Adams wrote most of the code for our universe.))
LMAO !!! "They might as well have moved to Area 51 as far as I am concerned." Seriously, I can't stop laughing - which is good bc otherwise I might start crying :)
The SP drop is multi factorial
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Re. Sellas Life Sciences AML clinical trials.
They use a WT1 vaccine and are targeting a different patient population than MRKR - AML patients who "Are not candidates at the time of study entry for allogeneic stem cell transplant (Allo-SCT)." MRKR is targeting AML patients post-Allo stem cell transplantation.
For their PI/II clinical trial: they tested their WT1 vaccine in combination with pembrolizumab/Keytruda, an antibody that acts as a PD1 checkpoint inhibitor (PD1 is a receptor on T Cells, which when activated by tumor cells shuts down T cell activation).
For their PIII clinical trial they are comparing their WT1 vaccine alone to several "best available" chemotherapies.
-----------------------------
I'd love to see multipronged attack using MRKR's therapy combined with checkpoint inhibitors like Keytruda (PD1 inhibitor) and/or AK117 (CD47 inhibitor) - and something like ImmunoGen's CD123-targeting Antibody-Drug-Conjugate that kills AML cells.
Lobster was served to prisoners(cheap, considered a bottom dwelling crustacean by the early settlers) back in the day.
Thank you very much Phantom.
No one brought it up, it just came up in some random search I was doing, and I did remember discussing it a while back, so I checked it out a bit and posted about it.
I really appreciate your reminder of the details of those discussions that I had forgot about. It is good to know that Catherine Bollard and MANA are just parasites - I wonder if ivermectin would be effective against them? :)
What would be really nice is if our AML P2 shows some impressive results and we partner in a trial with someone, like say ImmunoGen, with it's IMGN632, a CD123-targeting Antibody-Drug-Conjugate:
IMGN632 is a CD123-targeting antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) comprising a novel anti-CD123 antibody coupled, via a peptide linker, to a unique DNA-alkylating cytotoxic payload . . . with a wide therapeutic index in animal models, as well as a 150-fold differential cytotoxicity in AML patient samples compared to normal hematopoietic progenitors
AK117 is a novel humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting CD47, a macrophage immune checkpoint that allows tumor cells to evade immune destruction by phagocytic cells.
Re. Questions on IP.
Does anyone here remember discussing this lovely lady's efforts using Multi-TAA T-Cells a year or three ago? Catherine Bollard, M.D., MBChB. I don't recall what became of the discussion.
She's a cofounder of MANA Theraputics. They are a private company.
They raised $50mil from 6 investors on Nov 30, 2021, which is right around the time when MRKR dropped to ~$1.
It looks like we are well ahead of them in in terms of clinical trials if you include the Baylor trials. But still, it does bring up the IP question and complicates things a bit.
1. Their approach is similar to ours, except they are are using one less antigen than MRKR, and they are producing T-Cells for "off the shelf" delivery: they collect and produce T cells from donors in advance and freeze them.
Their antigen mix: WT1, PRAME, and SURVIVIN.
Our Antigen Mix: WT1, PRAME, Survivin, NY-ESO-1
2. They have a similar AML P1 clinical Trial in progress, with one publication
3. In 2020, they improved their T Cell production to produce doses up to 200 million T cells. Our current P2 AML study is using is using 50 million T cells.
4. On their "Our Story" page it says, " MANA is also in discussions with multiple partners who have proprietary antigens to permit development of partnered MANA products for a broad range of cancer indications."
------------------------
edit: It will be interesting to see what changes have occurred in Institutional Investors in MRKR with the next update. There were ~15mil shares traded during last week's drop in price after the Orphan Drug Designation . . .
Micro, I didn't think I'd get it at 0.67 either. And Friday when I bought at 0.63 I swear I hesitated thinking it might drop into the 0.50s . . . and today of course it happens. Oh well.
I just hope this quote of yours ages poorly :)
I see me and you and hanscott and others still buying and I think of the line from the movie Guardians of the Galaxy when rocket said.
"here we are, a bunch of idiots standing in a circle"