Replies to post #199308 on Biotech Values

[mcbio]

CLLS -

The CLLS risk isn't GVHD, since that is mediated primarily by one thing - and hence easily edited out. The risk is what they have to do to prevent HVG from wiping out the treatment. In order to prevent that they have to lympho deplete much more significantly and for much longer than auto CART. Which is risky from an infection pov.

So in aggregate they are likely to have either lesser efficacy (because HVG wipes out their treatment) or high mortality from infection. But I'd suggest that one patient is much less likely to show this because they will get special care which wouldn't show up in a larger trial, much less if SOC.

Seems like a fair caveat in there (and at least part of why I've taken half my chips off the table). But, my gut is it will be a while before we get a definitive answer on whether or not the CLLS approach hits either extreme (too little efficacy/too much infection) and the chance that it actually finds anywhere near a happy medium is enough for me to continue to hang on to the rest of my position for now given how potentially disruptive an off-the-shelf approach could be in this space (plus their IP, ag business, etc.).