Marker Therapeutics Inc (MRKR)

[hanscott]

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.