23% of HR-MDS patients became transfusion-independent (TI) with bexmarilimab + azacitidine combination therapy.
Maintenance of TI status was 65%, meaning most patients who achieved a TI response remained independent going forward.
In the untreated HR-MDS group, 57% of baseline transfusion-dependent patients achieved TI status.
Bexmarilimab + azacitidine increased the number of erythrocyte, thrombocyte, and leukocyte precursors in the bone marrow, supporting hematopoietic recovery.
The mechanism of Clever-1 inhibition was evident in biomarker data: progenitor cell recovery, amplification of inflammasignals, and immune cell activation.
Animal models confirmed the mechanism: Clever-1 deletion or inhibition accelerated hematological recovery after chemotherapy.
Colony formation assays showed that Clever-1 inhibition promoted the growth of healthy blood cell lineages.
The safety profile was consistent with previous observations: adverse events were mainly typical for MDS treatments, with no new safety concerns.
The BEX+AZA combination demonstrated both disease modification and hematopoietic support, distinguishing it from many other HR-MDS treatment combinations.
Study conclusion: the combination may offer clinically meaningful responses in high-risk MDS and warrants further investigation in later stages.
Reading the thread, one easily gets the idea that soon even the continental plates will shift and billions will pour in. Against this background, it is difficult for me to understand why not a single new institutional investor has appeared among Faron’s largest owners, and instead, even the existing ones have reduced their holdings since March:
The holdings of the 30 largest owners decreased by over 3.5 million shares, when considering the shares directed by Faron to itself. Not a single new institutional investor has appeared on the ownership lists despite these amazing results. During the same period, a round 3 million shares have been delivered to HCM, and even those have not found their way into the portfolios of the largest owners. In Nordnet, on the other hand, the number of owners has grown by about 3500 since the turn of the year.
Overall, institutional investors are not buying, the number of shares in nominee accounts is decreasing, and the number of small investors is growing. One would think that someone’s alarm bells would be ringing instead of just dreaming. Or are institutional investors really this clueless about the opportunity of the century?
Not all First Norths have many institutional investors. But not all First Norths also have the tables turned and all the cards in their own hands. What contradiction might @ValkoinenPeura have been referring to?
I promise to donate to that Finprove as soon as Faron is sold, and I would recommend those who already have some funds to invest in it now, because that “nearly a million” is a miserable sum in those schemes.
Institutional sales are quite small; mainly Lind has been offloading them. If the review period includes the stock’s highest price after the latest offerings, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that someone has sold, reducing their risk / cashing in their profits. When the top 100 shareholders are examined, the sales are really small.
Another question, of course, would be what then?
I am puzzled by some investors who have lost faith trying to create more hysteria by digging up negatives. Is this an attempt to justify their own stance and that the timing for an exit was right, or is it a quintessential Finnish trait where one is willing to pay a hundred to prevent a neighbor from getting fifty?
None of us can, of course, say for sure whether this will generate profit or loss. If I sold now, I would exit with a couple of thousand in profit. The idea, however, would be that at least one more zero could be added to that before I even consider lightening my position. Time will tell if that zero increases or if the remaining zeros disappear.
Institutional sales are quite small; mainly Lind has offloaded them. If the review period includes the time when the share price was at its highest after the latest offerings, it shouldn’t be a huge surprise that someone has sold to reduce their risk / realize their profits. When looking at the top 100 shareholders, the sales are really small.
Another question, of course, would be, what then?
I am puzzled by some investors who have lost faith trying to create more hysteria by digging up negatives. Is this an attempt to justify their own stance and that the timing for their exit was right, or is it a quintessential Finnish trait where one is willing to pay a hundred to prevent the neighbor from getting fifty?
Of course, none of us can say for sure whether this will generate profit or loss. If I were to sell now, I would exit with a couple of thousand in profit. However, the idea is that at least one more zero could be added to that before I even consider lightening my position. Time will tell if that zero increases or if the remaining zeros disappear.
It occurred to me… could Syrjälä’s ownership share decrease be related to the demands of a future partner? Through Faron and AI glasses, this is possible:thinking:
It is indeed peculiar that the most active writers are people who don’t hold shares and are disappointed with the stock. The messages always seem to be of the same caliber: Faron is deceiving everyone and creating hysteria. If significant positive news (partner, FDA) comes in the near future, then those ‘Jalkaset’ are certainly quite the salesmen based on those messages.
Indeed, behind these negative messages, there might also be an attempt to push the stock price down for as long as possible, seeking a suitable moment to jump in big later. For example, CK seems to follow everything related to Faron very closely, and apparently also the progress of drug development more generally. Why couldn’t the underlying motive be an attempt to push the price down as much as possible and wait for the right moment for larger purchases?
By the way, it’s hard to understand why some individuals follow the company so closely and write actively, even though they don’t seem to own any shares at all.
Look at Sirpa and Markku Jalkanen Foundation Sr. It’s worth transferring there while the share price is low, so there won’t be such a large tax burden. They have previously announced their willingness to create a foundation, etc.
So the answer to the question is they transferred them to the foundation, you can also Google Jussi Koivunen
Many have a “fatalistic” view of this stock, which goes something like this:
-The stock price doesn’t matter, because if the drug fails, I’ll lose 99% of my investment anyway. But if the drug succeeds, I’ll make 10- at best 100x.
The first part of the claim is probably true, but the latter part needs to be carefully evaluated. It’s not at all the same whether the estimated upside is 5 or 20x.
There should be several stocks of this risk level, each with a maximum weight of 5%. Because the harsh fact is that most fail, and that one win will hopefully cover the losses of the others. And to cover losses, the win must be substantial.
Earlier, @Kettu4 provided a sensible valuation model, which surprisingly didn’t spark discussion. I personally see a 5x upside for Faron from now until the bexmab-02 readout (perhaps in 2028), if it’s positive. But I believe the probability (P) for this is less than 10%, so the setup is not favorable.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to repeatedly doubt my motives. Let me repeat: On the forum, investors help other investors, and this stock (drug) is difficult to evaluate even for biotech, extremely risky, highly valued, and many small investors are involved with it, so I think I’m providing benefit to readers. I also benefit myself; I’ve learned a lot about MDS. And also about investment psychology. I do follow the Nasdaq Biotech Index and its approximately 700 stocks daily, at least regarding the biggest price movements and news, but understandably, few of them spark discussion here.
I agree that such a thought pattern is easy to imagine.
Some also think that one should be more critical of a company the more it has to do with one’s own investing. There is a strong rational and economic logic to it, actually, if one doesn’t want to just have a binary opinion about companies as part of a crowd. The most profitable thing is to find something bad that turns good. It only requires that both the discovery and the decision are not wrong.
This is not related to the company’s business, but the spirit of the thread is to speculate on others’ decisions and what others think of the company, so I’ll take the liberty to mention it. It’s still great that the thread also features thankless opposition and not just tattoos and theme songs about conquering the world. Even genuinely bad criticism is more useful for a net buyer, which actually makes the setup of buying diamond hands vs. non-owning critics quite irrational, even with 92% diluted human psychology. It’s a shame that this human psychology obscures the discussion of such boring, easily overlooked topics.
This is a quick interview conducted by ASCO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The interviewee is an assistant professor in the leukemia department at City of Hope, one of the leading cancer hospitals in the USA and one of the BEXMAB study sites. He could very well be one of our researchers.
Yesterday, this interview managed to create drama and sweep the floor here. The interviewee went through the ASH results and concluded, “Overall these results are really encouraging for a very high risk subset, probably the greatest unmet need we have in our field.”
One can even be happy about such statements. With ASH, Bex’s awareness grew again. “Probably the greatest unmet need” is directly from the regulator’s guidebook, and the recent misfortune of venetoclax again took tools out of doctors’ hands in the treatment of HR-MDS. Everyone probably remembers Ralph Hughes’ market research on Bex, where interviewed expert doctors often mentioned venetoclax as an MDS treatment, even though it has not had an indication for it. If Bex comes to mind for experts in the future and is discussed, the pressure on the partner, i.e., consumer demand in their eyes, will increase. At this stage, we hope for pressure to get Bex into the next challenges.
My writing was by no means directed at you; I have given to understand that you have never had an ownership stake. I was more referring to investors whose sentiment turned from positive to negative after panic. One can only guess your motives regarding your time usage; it could indeed be an attempt to help investors.
I agree, it’s not the same whether the upside is 5x or 20x, but either one is certainly welcome. The opposite outcome is also entirely possible. I originally put my money into this purely as a lottery ticket, with the idea of seeing if something would come of it. Lottery tickets aren’t thrown away before the draw is made I’ve also had money invested in much lower-risk companies, and even there, I’ve lost money, if not as much as with a “basic Tesla,” then at least a down payment.
What makes the interview interesting is also that Ball works in consultant/advisor roles for BMS. BMS is one of the most active players in the field in immunology and in the development of MDS/AML treatments, specifically seeking new immunological mechanisms.
So, when a BSM consultant and expert describes BEXMAB data as “deep and durable” and “very encouraging,” especially in TP53 patients, that is already significant. If the data looked problematic or vague, a BMS advisor would not use such expressions in a public ASCO Post interview.
I’ve also had money invested in much lower-risk companies, and even there, I’ve lost money, if not as much as with a “basic Tesla,” then at least a down payment.