Vinmantoo and Dew - a response but nothing new really,
I see this more as a defense of integrity and an indictment
on speculation. In a subsequent E-mail I stressed the
financial plight of the company (see the last paragraph)
and although I see a defense against some of our
assertions that financing should be available, there is
nothing to suggest financing is on the way.
*-----------------------* Tom
I do not intend to get caught up in back and forth
debating of speculative statements utilizing your
e-mails as a proxy communication process
for this or any other issue. Our documents
are a fair representation of the facts and our
views and should be used as the source
material for any investor to reach their own
conclusions. To close this thread as well
as my participation in this forum, I will point
out some facts.
The fact that MG and MS indications are not
new ideas for AFP is correct. This idea has
been in the medical literature for some time.
Merrimack chose to change direction to pursue
RA without obtaining any clinical data in either
MG or MS even though there was, and is,
comparatively little preclinical evidence for
efficacy in RA. What is unique about developing
rhAFP by either Merrimack or ourselves is the
fact that we have established a commercially
viable production system to enable development
and studies. By referring to the preclinical studies
you will see that significant work with AFP in MG
and MS models had been accomplished utilizing
umbilical cord blood, which is not a commercially
viable production method. This very real limitation
has historically hindered others interested in the
protein’s therapeutic potential. We have been
consistent in stating our strategic interest in
programs where our technology conveys a unique
market position for a product that is difficult for
others to match using conventional systems.
Obviously, this discussion of the preclinical
work and the safety data that Merrimack has
gathered from the other indications does not
guarantee that rhAFP will end up being a
successful product in MG or MS. However,
nothing in the clinical work Merrimack did
complete suggests that rhAFP would not be
efficacious in MG or MS and the preclinical
supporting evidence of potential efficacy is
compelling regardless of how old it may be.
As far as I am aware, data does not have a shelf
life unless new data and facts are uncovered to
directly refute the established facts. Published
facts in peer reviewed studies are the highest
level of quality data we can point to. We believe
there is more than sufficient evidence to justify
interest by a potential partner in clinical
development of rhAFP for MG and MS.
Similarly, the points you raise about the liquidity
of private equity appear to be based on
speculation as superior to facts in making
judgments. The private equity markets are
difficult to assess for liquidity generally, much
less for a specific issue such as Merrimack.
While it is true that the IPO market is simply an
indicator and not definitive of this non-transparent
market, much less for Merrimack in particular, it is
a data point to help inform public investors who
have no private market exposure on the liquidity
of private issues among a broad group of investors.
This data point does support the diligence work
that we did on the Merrimack equity. The strength
of the point in your note appears to be on
speculation that we fabricate statements and that
entrenched view of our veracity must trump the
information we have provided. If this is the mindset
going into any discussion, it is not possible to
provide sufficient facts that will satisfy any
exchange of ideas.
All the best to you,
Tom
Thomas E. Newberry
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
