amiroo @AMRTGH

@Panic_n_Sell Did any Analyst published anything g after the conference?

A powerful gene-editing technique has been used to edit DNA directly in a person’s body — the first known instance of such a treatment. go.nature.com/4iC2gMn

@theodorebeers Fak-e- Ezafeh!

@AlanEyre1 disinformation. The quote is false; People Magazine has confirmed no such 1998 interview or quote exists in its archives, with multiple fact-checkers like Snopes and PolitiFact debunking it since 2015.

@Investingcom Eitherway Trump is a loser

@MadelnCanada Insulin and basketball

In my opinion, this simply means the value of company should go back prior to the vaccine announcement. the market is for 400k drug is so extremly thin. also this part from wsj says it all. "Analysts often value a drug at roughly 4× peak annual sales. A melanoma approval might generate ~$4 billion a year total; Moderna’s share (split with Merck) is estimated at ~$2 billion peak, implying ~$8 billion in market cap. Yet even after the sell-off, Moderna’s value is roughly $55 billion higher than before the August news. That pricing effectively assumes the vaccine works across multiple tumor types and approaches the scale of Keytruda, the world’s top-selling cancer drug."

For the record, I couldn't find the $400K figure in the WSJ article either. It discussed pricing and commercialization challenges, but no confirmed price. Even at $40K, I'd question the cost-effectiveness. Also, the 12.2 percentage-point improvement is in recurrence-free survival, NOT mortality. An overall survival benefit hasn't been established yet. $MRNA

@bullwallstreet2 The clinical triumph is real. the valuation of the company is not. Kudos to the MRNA scientists for their achievement. all i am saying is the market is too hyped. market is not always rational, so the pricing of Moderna next week remains unclear.

My bearish $MRNA view following the Phase 3 INTerpath-001 melanoma results presented at ESMO 2026 rests on four concerns: RFS HR 0.58 confirms efficacy, not commercial success. NADINA's neoadjuvant immunotherapy offers serious competition for eligible patients. The incremental contribution of personalized neoantigens versus nonspecific mRNA-LNP stimulation remains unproven. Overall survival benefit is not yet established; long-term Phase 3 data remain immature. Clinical success ≠ commercial dominance. In my view, Moderna's valuation still assumes too much. $MRK $BMY

Agreed, severe toxicity is a major drawback of neoadjuvant ipi/nivo. But ~30% refers to grade 3–4 adverse events, not deaths. My concern is commercial competitiveness, not clinical superiority. We still lack a head-to-head trial establishing whether Intismeran's additional cost and complexity justify its use over existing regimens. $MRNA

Bearish on $MRNA's valuation, not its clinical efficacy. This ESMO slide highlights the elephant in the room: NADINA's neoadjuvant immunotherapy uses existing drugs, with shorter treatment duration, while Moderna's personalized vaccine faces manufacturing delays, logistical challenges and high costs. No head-to-head efficacy comparison exists. But why assume massive peak sales when established alternatives already deliver strong outcomes? Clinical success ≠ commercial success. $MRK $BMY

Healthspan Builder @buildhealthspan

a day ago

@adamfeuerstein The most important slide. Neoadjuvant double the rate of severe toxicity vs $MRNA vaccine.

2 1 5 2K 3

Bearish on $MRNA's valuation, not its clinical efficacy. An ESMO slide raises a crucial question: How much of Intismeran's benefit comes from personalized tumor antigens versus nonspecific immune stimulation by mRNA-LNPs? INTerpath-001 didn't include an mRNA-LNP control, so we don't know. If a standardized mRNA formulation can deliver similar benefits, what justifies the cost, complexity and premium valuation of a personalized vaccine? Clinical success ≠ a defensible commercial moat. $MRK

@DrMichaelBonner I got happy to see Persian on the top, then I saw German there which invalidated the whole Tweet.

Let's be clear about $MRNA's cancer vaccine: It doesn't cure existing melanoma tumors. In its Phase 3 trial, patients first underwent surgery to remove the cancer. The personalized mRNA vaccine was then given alongside Keytruda to train the immune system to recognize tumor mutations and reduce recurrence risk. It's an adjuvant treatment, not a replacement for surgery. Clinical benefit is real, but its added value versus modern neoadjuvant immunotherapy remains unproven. $MRK

pharmacreep @pharmacreep

3 days ago

$MRK $MRNA data amazing HR .58. So $MRK $MRNA data leaked to this website which is now down. HR is .58. oncology-central.com/interpath001-t…

4 18 52 58K 27

@OverboughtWatch You owe 2.6 🇨🇦 🍁 dollars

Bearish $MRNA. NADINA demonstrated an EFS HR of ~0.32 with neoadjuvant immunotherapy, versus 0.58 RFS HR for Moderna's cancer vaccine + Keytruda. Not a head-to-head comparison, but a serious commercial threat. Why pay a premium for a personalized vaccine if existing treatments can deliver strong outcomes? Without superiority data against modern neoadjuvant regimens, Moderna's addressable market and peak-sales forecasts look increasingly optimistic. $MRK

I see in IBKR that $MRNA trade halted. anyone can confirm? @grok is it right?

Trump’s deal with Putin is very clear: Zelensky ends the war and accepts defeat, and Putin solves the Iran problem by convincing Iran to also end the war. Trump publicly threatened Zelensky, stripping him of legitimacy and essentially calling him a dictator. The Europeans who had been firm in their support for Zelensky quickly followed Trump’s lead and signaled that spending on Ukraine is too high. Zelensky then completely changed his tone and today said: “We need 9.5 million people who lost their housing, who are abroad everywhere, we need them to come back to Ukraine, just to live and to build their country.” Zelensky doesn’t have many options at this moment. He can’t win this war. But is he just acting because he knows this deal won’t hold in the face of an unyielding Iran? It’s very likely. In fact, I don’t see Putin putting all his cards on the table to save Trump. Not only do I think Zelensky is playing, but I also think Putin will solve his own problem, start talks with Iran, and then, after Trump loses the elections, the whole deal with Iran will have to be redone for another US leader. Trump argued that Zelensky is illegitimate, and he may even be right. But himself, with only 31% approval and on the verge of losing his majority, doesn’t appear to have the legitimacy for signing a long-term agreement either. Putin knows it, and Zelensky knows it. I will write more on substack.com/@global21