Replies to post #158433 on Biotech Values

[poorgradstudent]

GERN:

Are you fairly confident that the ET results will be more likely to translate to MF than to MM?

If I was a betting man, I would bet that way... MF more likely than MM.

I am also curious how PV fits into all of this and why GERN has apparently never reported data on the 2 PV patients enrolled in the ET/PV trial. Should we take the lack of disclosure of specific details on the 2 PV patients as a negative and how closely does PV correspond to MF?

I always assume lack of disclosure = negative results, even if the stock is in my portfolio ;-)

But I'm not really all that jazzed up about 2 PV patients not being reported. Unless they both had miraculous cures, I don't think you'd get much out of a data set where n=2.

[iwfal]

GERN -

Are you fairly confident that the ET results will be more likely to translate to MF than to MM? I think I read that ET can in due time ultimately turn into MF. MM seems to be an entirely separate and distinct heme onc indication.

MF, ET, PV, AML are all part of the same spectrum. Proliferative disorders somewhere up the myeloid stem-cell chain (see the left hand chains in the graphic).

Multiple Myeloma is in a different branch of the system. Somewhere in the lymphocytic chain I believe (i.e. on the right side of the graphic somewhere).

More importantly, I believe that ET and PV patients are not at increased risk of developing MM, but they are at significantly increased risk of developing MF and/or AML.

I am also curious how PV fits into all of this and why GERN has apparently never reported data on the 2 PV patients enrolled in the ET/PV trial.

FWIW I am not so worried about the lack of reporting per se - as with the very fact that they shut it down after two patients. Combined with the fact that for ET they reported none of the PV-like data and the fact that Geron has a reasonable history of silence is dangerous and ... .