Merck? Really??? Even though they are in three Pha
Post# of 158136
(Total Views: 317)
Posted On: 10/23/2025 2:56:28 AM
Merck? Really??? Even though they are in three Phase III cancer studies with drugs that turn cold tumors hot?
So, SamaGong, you are right--I got Tyler Blok's name spelled wrong. (Apologies to Tyler and his family). And apologies for the long post. But in your reply I didn't see any response to the points I made about Merck being already invested--Bigly--in cancer therapeutics (including two that "turn cold tumors hot"
. It's for those reasons I think Merck is not likely to do us a solid.
The one point you did respond to--the Merck trial I mentioned that combines vicriviroc and Keytruda in mCRC--you got the dates wrong. The trial actually started in 2018 and finished in 2021. With an ORR of 5%. I think you confused Merck's failure to advance vicriviroc in HIV back in 2009 with the much more recent mCRC trial. (It's the only reason I could find for your specious mention of 2009). So Merck does have recent experience with a CCR5-inhibitor--admittedly, a poorly designed one--in the same indication we are studying in mCRC.
The experience with vicriviroc--above and beyond the hundreds of millions Merck has invested in T-cell engagers and STING antagonists and bi-specific antibodies in cancer--makes me think Merck might have soured on CCR5 inhibitors. And right now they have two Phase III trials with drugs that "turn cold tumors hot." One I mentioned in the earlier post--the LAG-3 inhibitor eftilagimod alpha ("efti" from Immutep, is being trialed in first line NSCLC (NCT06726265). Efti almost doubles the ORR rate for people with low or no PD-L/PDL-1. And it increases the ORR of those who are in the high PDL/PDL-1 range, who already respond well to ICIs. (They advertise the study as an "all comers" trial). So it's not a one-trick-pony--it does more than just boost the PDL/PDL-1 levels...
Merck has another collaboration, with Moderna and their cancer vaccine, for melanoma and NSCLC (NCT05933577 and NCT0607770, respectively). I haven't read up on the trials, but was aware that the mRNA vaccines for covid seem to boost PDL/PDL-1 and increase the response rate for ICIs. And today--as mfglola alerted us earlier, with a link--Drs Grippin and Marconi tell us "Patients who received an mRNA-based covid vaccine within 100 days of starting ICIs" basically doubled their OS numbers at three-years. And also "Surprisingly, patients that don't typically respond well to immunotherapy also saw strong benefits, with nearly fivefold improvement in three year OS."
Grippin is at MD Anderson, and plans are to get a trial started in both melanoma and NSCLC. Some serious competition, clearly. But this time Cytodyn actually has a head start on our competitors. And we are studying leronlimab in different indications. And of course we eviscerate CCL5 and handle metastasis pretty well, so I think our drug will win out when all is said and done. Perhaps we'll lose a few indications... but I'm not worried. But if a friend or family member was getting ICI treatment for cancer, right now or soon, I'd make sure they got a covid mRNA within 100 days of initiating the drug! And if they weren't getting an ICI because their PDL/PDL-1 numbers are too low, get that shot post haste and monitor those numbers!
I'd go on about why I am confident in Cytodyn's prospects given the news... But I don't want to ramble on. Or rumble. So let's return to Merck as a potential partner for Cytodyn. And let's look at the deals Moderna and Immutep made with Merck.
Moderna originally signed a deal with Merck back in 2016, for $200 million. Then in 2022 Merck exercised an option on mRNA4157/V940 for $250 million, sharing costs and profits equally. Impressive.
With Phase II results that suggest it will soon become part of the new SOC in NSCLC (Phase III began spring 2025), Immutep received from Merck--free Keytruda for the trial. That's what a penny stock with great science--and no love from Wall Street--gets from Merck these days. As an investor in IMMP, I am furious! As a human being, I am appalled... If I were Cytodyn I'd look elsewhere for a real deal...
* * * * *
Look, if Merck does come up with a decent offer I'll be cryin' all the way to the bank! (The VIOXX deaths still bothers me... But sure, I'll take their money). Personally I'd like a partnership with a company that values us fairly and is aligned with Dr Lalezari's vision to develop leronlimab for cancer (and allows us the non-cancer indications). Given the way they have treated Immutep, well, I don't think Merck is that company. Plus all the money they have invested in other cancer drugs. Plus they got their injectable version okayed by the FDA! Look, I'm happy to hear other perspectives... or any other real information out there. But if it's just "Merck's drug is going off patent and they need us," well, that kinda logic is horseshit when you look at the big picture, amid all the competition. And to think that Merck isn't already actively working hard to figure out how to turn cold tumors hot--Really???
* * * * *
My original post got something like 27 dislikes, and a bunch of public responses from the likes of Mazzy69 and other fake posters (thankfully scrubbed by the mods). Look, I get that criticizing Merck might not be popular on this board, but cut me some slack, assholes! I'll keep calling them like I see 'em... And I'll continue to back it up. And for all of the reasons stated above--I don't see Merck in Cytodyn's future. Unless they do a real 180...
So, SamaGong, you are right--I got Tyler Blok's name spelled wrong. (Apologies to Tyler and his family). And apologies for the long post. But in your reply I didn't see any response to the points I made about Merck being already invested--Bigly--in cancer therapeutics (including two that "turn cold tumors hot"
. It's for those reasons I think Merck is not likely to do us a solid. The one point you did respond to--the Merck trial I mentioned that combines vicriviroc and Keytruda in mCRC--you got the dates wrong. The trial actually started in 2018 and finished in 2021. With an ORR of 5%. I think you confused Merck's failure to advance vicriviroc in HIV back in 2009 with the much more recent mCRC trial. (It's the only reason I could find for your specious mention of 2009). So Merck does have recent experience with a CCR5-inhibitor--admittedly, a poorly designed one--in the same indication we are studying in mCRC.
The experience with vicriviroc--above and beyond the hundreds of millions Merck has invested in T-cell engagers and STING antagonists and bi-specific antibodies in cancer--makes me think Merck might have soured on CCR5 inhibitors. And right now they have two Phase III trials with drugs that "turn cold tumors hot." One I mentioned in the earlier post--the LAG-3 inhibitor eftilagimod alpha ("efti"
from Immutep, is being trialed in first line NSCLC (NCT06726265). Efti almost doubles the ORR rate for people with low or no PD-L/PDL-1. And it increases the ORR of those who are in the high PDL/PDL-1 range, who already respond well to ICIs. (They advertise the study as an "all comers" trial). So it's not a one-trick-pony--it does more than just boost the PDL/PDL-1 levels... Merck has another collaboration, with Moderna and their cancer vaccine, for melanoma and NSCLC (NCT05933577 and NCT0607770, respectively). I haven't read up on the trials, but was aware that the mRNA vaccines for covid seem to boost PDL/PDL-1 and increase the response rate for ICIs. And today--as mfglola alerted us earlier, with a link--Drs Grippin and Marconi tell us "Patients who received an mRNA-based covid vaccine within 100 days of starting ICIs" basically doubled their OS numbers at three-years. And also "Surprisingly, patients that don't typically respond well to immunotherapy also saw strong benefits, with nearly fivefold improvement in three year OS."
Grippin is at MD Anderson, and plans are to get a trial started in both melanoma and NSCLC. Some serious competition, clearly. But this time Cytodyn actually has a head start on our competitors. And we are studying leronlimab in different indications. And of course we eviscerate CCL5 and handle metastasis pretty well, so I think our drug will win out when all is said and done. Perhaps we'll lose a few indications... but I'm not worried. But if a friend or family member was getting ICI treatment for cancer, right now or soon, I'd make sure they got a covid mRNA within 100 days of initiating the drug! And if they weren't getting an ICI because their PDL/PDL-1 numbers are too low, get that shot post haste and monitor those numbers!
I'd go on about why I am confident in Cytodyn's prospects given the news... But I don't want to ramble on. Or rumble. So let's return to Merck as a potential partner for Cytodyn. And let's look at the deals Moderna and Immutep made with Merck.
Moderna originally signed a deal with Merck back in 2016, for $200 million. Then in 2022 Merck exercised an option on mRNA4157/V940 for $250 million, sharing costs and profits equally. Impressive.
With Phase II results that suggest it will soon become part of the new SOC in NSCLC (Phase III began spring 2025), Immutep received from Merck--free Keytruda for the trial. That's what a penny stock with great science--and no love from Wall Street--gets from Merck these days. As an investor in IMMP, I am furious! As a human being, I am appalled... If I were Cytodyn I'd look elsewhere for a real deal...
* * * * *
Look, if Merck does come up with a decent offer I'll be cryin' all the way to the bank! (The VIOXX deaths still bothers me... But sure, I'll take their money). Personally I'd like a partnership with a company that values us fairly and is aligned with Dr Lalezari's vision to develop leronlimab for cancer (and allows us the non-cancer indications). Given the way they have treated Immutep, well, I don't think Merck is that company. Plus all the money they have invested in other cancer drugs. Plus they got their injectable version okayed by the FDA! Look, I'm happy to hear other perspectives... or any other real information out there. But if it's just "Merck's drug is going off patent and they need us," well, that kinda logic is horseshit when you look at the big picture, amid all the competition. And to think that Merck isn't already actively working hard to figure out how to turn cold tumors hot--Really???
* * * * *
My original post got something like 27 dislikes, and a bunch of public responses from the likes of Mazzy69 and other fake posters (thankfully scrubbed by the mods). Look, I get that criticizing Merck might not be popular on this board, but cut me some slack, assholes! I'll keep calling them like I see 'em... And I'll continue to back it up. And for all of the reasons stated above--I don't see Merck in Cytodyn's future. Unless they do a real 180...
(7)
(0)