The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Industry Discussions / Biotechnology


Subject:  Re: Genocea 009 Date:  6/4/2020  9:40 AM
Author:  Fuma102 Number:  25349 of 25598

Sorry, I misspoke. I had only briefly looked at the initial post, and now having looked at the website and researched a bit, below are my thoughts.

-On first glance, the concept is intriguing. (no, its not intra-tumoral, I have just always associated "neoantigen" with intra-tumoral injections - my fault).
.... though this is likely incredibly time and money intensive. And while that in and of itself shouldnt be a hinderance, well... there is a huge barrier to all of this:

- the FDA. They, understandably, probably want an air-tight manufacturing process and any minute changes to the process may result in months / years of setbacks.

I like the concept, and it *seems* simple enough, but its probably incredibly complex. and this *might* be where the world takes us (and/or the "off the shelf" "precision therapy" market), but then the question is, can it be genocea?

To which I have to ask, can it be?
So, to me, I tend to be risk averse in biotech and try not to hit home runs, but rather doubles. There are ALOT of things that go into the scrap heap in biotech. As a matter of personal preference, I wait for published clinical trial data to suggest clinical / real world success before I jump in. While this limits my multi-multi-multi baggers, it also minimizes my chances of utter failure and losing a large fraction of my investment. To me, I dont even bother playing the game of "just a small portion of my portfolio" with super small phase 1 trial companies. I give 1-2% of my port to companies with a proven P2 trial that can expand past their initial indicated market with a few (maybe 2-3ish) other drugs in development. So with that....

-Penny stocks are hard to swallow for me. Strike 1.
-proven track record. kind of; decent data as ASCO this year, promising, but VERY early. Ball 1 / foul ball.
-As for track record, I see they have been public since 2014ish. Looks like they were developing a herpes vaccine that was suddenly shelved after completing P3 trials. So, they can develop something clinically (maybe) but cant market it (bad business sense / doesnt make sense for the world financially?). Theyve only recently gone into oncology. I dont like companies that hope focus from one field to another, and have not proven much in their "current" target field yet have been in business for years. Strike 2.

I understand the excitement, but I would be *very* cautious. Interesting idea to keep an eye on, but not for me right now. I like coming to the plate with a 2-0 count rather than 1-2 :P

Copyright 1996-2021 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us