Peter

[Peter @gd_pete]

@Biotech2k1 What's your target price?

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k Retail enthusiasm doesn't establish clinical value, nor does physician skepticism erase it. Evidence should guide our judgment. The real value isn't only what this means today, but what it makes possible tomorrow. That's what makes this achievement so remarkable. 5/5

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k I also agree that every cancer is different and each indication requires its own clinical evidence. Success in melanoma doesn't establish efficacy elsewhere.

But demonstrating benefit with a personalized mRNA approach in Phase 3 is an important milestone worth recognizing. 4/5

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k An RFS HR of 0.58 in a randomized Phase 3 trial isn't trivial. It represents a meaningful reduction in the risk of recurrence or death.

That doesn't guarantee widespread adoption, but uncertainty about commercialization shouldn't diminish the clinical evidence. 3/5

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k Where I disagree is your characterization of the medical community as generally viewing these results as “meh.”

That's a broad claim. Some oncologists may be skeptical, but others have recognized the clinical significance of the Phase 3 results. 2/5

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k I appreciate the thoughtful response. I agree that some retail investors are extrapolating far beyond what the data support. And you're right that physician adoption, regulatory approval, and reimbursement will ultimately determine commercial success. 1/5

[Peter @gd_pete]

@DoodadDoctor And claiming the stock would have risen only 20% with full data is speculation, not valuation analysis.

I agree that future cash flows matter. But that doesn't establish that the market has already fully valued the broader potential of this platform. 3/3

[Peter @gd_pete]

$MRNA ESMO data, I think this is a much bigger deal than the market is giving it credit for.
An RFS HR of 0.58 in Phase 3 is impressive, especially with a relatively modest increase in severe toxicity, seeing the Phase 2b results hold up in a larger trial is a big deal. 1/3

[Peter @gd_pete]

@DoodadDoctor A 300% rally doesn't automatically prove the platform's future potential is fully priced in, just as positive clinical data doesn't automatically mean the stock is undervalued.

Both require evidence. 2/3

[Peter @gd_pete]

@DoodadDoctor I understand how expectations get priced into a stock. That's not what I'm disputing.

My point is that confirming clinical benefit in a large Phase 3 trial is a meaningful milestone for personalized cancer vaccines. 1/3

[Peter @gd_pete]

@EdWilli63968626 Thank you for sharing that perspective and pointing me toward those trials. It means a lot coming from someone with firsthand experience in melanoma treatment. Wishing you continued health, and I truly appreciate your insight.

[Peter @gd_pete]

1/5
$MRNA $MRK
I think some investors are overlooking an important point about INTerpath-001.
This is an adjuvant melanoma trial, not a trial in patients with end-stage cancer. Patients had their tumors surgically removed, and the control arm received Keytruda.

[Peter @gd_pete]

@meangenebio Fair question,should clarify what I meant by "bigger deal than the market is giving it credit for." was referring primarily to the significance of the Phase 3 achievement,not claiming have a precise valuation for the vaccine.Its commercial potential still needs to be established.

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k 2/2

I’m not claiming to know more than oncologists. I respect their expertise, and I’m open to being corrected.
But scientific discussions should be based on evidence, not credentials alone. A valid argument stands on its data, regardless of who presents it.
$MRNA

[Peter @gd_pete]

@deathtouch2k 1/2

I agree that FDA approval and physicians’ decisions are what ultimately matter. But that doesn’t mean retail investors should stay silent when clinical data is misrepresented. You don’t need to be a doctor to point out factual errors in published trial results.

[Peter @gd_pete]

@DoodadDoctor $MRNA Past stock performance and the value of newly confirmed Phase 3 data are two different things. My point is that the clinical significance and broader potential of this platform may still be underappreciated.

[Peter @gd_pete]

@PowellChair $MRNA You're confusing the overall development timeline with the Phase 3 trial. INTerpath-001 began in 2023, and the median follow-up is 24.6 months. Trial duration and patient follow-up are not the same thing.

[Peter @gd_pete]

For decades, every other personalized cancer vaccine failed in Phase 3. Delivering a 42% RFS improvement on top of Keytruda is a historic milestone that no one else has ever achieved. Baffling how people ignore this just to push short-sighted narratives. 2/2

[Peter @gd_pete]

Of course a first-gen therapy isn't going to be 100% flawless right out of the gate. But step back and look at what $MRNA $MRK just pulled off after a decade of grinding, a true paradigm shift in how we treat cancer. 1/2

[Peter @gd_pete]

@manacalaczar A cartoon instead of an argument? That says more about your ability to understand Phase 3 clinical data than it does about me. Come back when you have something intelligent to contribute.

[Peter @gd_pete]

Blown away by the lazy misinformation on $MRNA right now. People are screaming about deaths and missing OS data while ignoring what’s written right on the slide. You can't blame a vaccine for side effects that happened while patients were only on Keytruda pre-vaccine.

[Peter @gd_pete]

@gmt9992 DeLLphi-305 results are impressive and deserve attention. But INTerpath-001 is also a major milestone, a personalized cancer vaccine demonstrating efficacy in Phase 3. Both are meaningful advances in oncology, with different clinical implications. $MRNA