There is a pattern here by some to claim that ONCS has a collaboration/partnership with Merck and base this claim on Pierce's previous employment at Merck.
Just because Pierce worked for Merck does not mean that there is a partnership in place now. Based on all the FACTS that have been laid out in my previous posts it is pretty clear that there is not a partnership. "Support" does not equal partnership. This is why ONCS purposefully grouped UCSF and ONCS together in regard to the "collaboration" and separately described Merck's role as "support".
The above also applies to a partnership being in place simply because ONCS was able to start a P2b combo trial. Going on about how unprecedented it is for ONCS to be allowed to go to a P2b is a separate point, and while encouraging, has nothing to do with a current partnership. It's simply an attempt to distract from the facts that show that there is not a current partnership.
Trying to make convince everyone that there is a partnership/collaboration in place is very misleading and I hope those reading this board understand that. That is not to say there won't at some point be a collaborative agreement between ONCS and Merck in the future. For right not though there is not one. If there were, the details would have been disclosed in an 8K such as the one I posted between ADXS and Merck.
If ONCS can prove that ImmunoPulse combined with Keytruda can turn anti-PD1 non-responders into responders, then I think we will see some type of official agreement between ONCS and Merck. As of right now, there is nothing. This misrepresentation of the current situation is likely what is responsible for the retail investor panic/frustration seen as of late. I strongly suggest not trying to make more of Merck's current (non) role than it truly is.
