Is it possible both the longs and shorts are right? I write this to hopefully get some thoughtful responses to my current thinking. The SA article definitely has some nonsensical conclusions in it. It asks why they've had data for a year and not made an affirmative decision to continue if the data is good? Obviously, the counter to that is why would they keep it dangling if they had reviewed the data and not seen something positive? They would surely just kill it and write it off. From an accounting perspective, they would want to and have to. One of the nuggets that seems to get lost to me is why a company would spend money and resources expanding the patent portfolio for a drug that is, as the SA article suggests, just a dud.
It makes me wonder is Imetelstat is the wrong application of very valid and important technology? One plausible situation, it seems to me, is that there are issues with Imetelstat and the current trial, but that Janssen believes the science is valid and strong. In this scenario, we may see Imetelstat not be the ultimate victory for GERN, but that there is still a victory to be had.
I can't get past some of the short arguments (some, not all) having SOME DEGREE of merit, but also seeing events/information that clearly supports that the underlying science GERN has is novel and important.
Why do you expand the patent portfolio for a science you know to not have merit? You wouldn't. By the same token, why would you not have already acquired a company you know to be sitting on a breakthrough drug that can be ready for the market in 12 months? My guess is that there are some real issues with Imetelstat (could be nothing more than the trial design), which pushes its fortunes out further than we hope, or that Janssen loves the science, but hasn't seen it applied correctly yet.
Thoughts?
