First off, that "article" is trash. He states in the beginning that "ASCO rules prohibit clinical outcome data from being presented in that [TIP] track." Then he goes on to say, "Does the ASCO rejection of the pancreatic cancer program abstract mean the preliminary results aren't that impressive? It may not be a great sign for the technology platform or for investors." I'll give him credit that he does go on to say it's too early to jump to conclusions but due to these two statements alone he has lost all credibility.
They have that many trials because of the merger, obviously. He should know that. The large costly trials for the peptide vaccines are fully funded by the DoD. He should know that too. They already stated their main priority is to move the AML trial along. That will be their lead candidate. If PC data continues to impress then that will be right behind AML. Just because they have multiple indications doesn't mean they will all progress at the same pace with the same cost. Also, about the cost. As we all know, and has been stated multiple times, the cost of the MultiTAA therapy is somewhere between $8k-$10k a year so while it is costly to run trials in general our cost should be lower due to the low cost of the therapy. All of this is information he should have known when he wrote his "article." I'd be surprised if he did more than 10 minutes of research before writing that garbage.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
