Cluelessbio

$abvx sobering…

@physioo If NPV of $abvx is ~ $4 billion on UC and maybe ~$ 1.5 billion on Crohns then there actually is a lot of downside if no pharma is interested.

Love the business updates on $abvx Hired cco, business as usual Obv maintenance data looks good if ceo is talking about a raise post data Abivax reminds me of Verona…get the drug to market followed by a buyout

@unemon1 @A_May_MD He only ever talks about ex-US partnerships. Doesn’t inspire confidence in a buyout.

@A_May_MD So, he got asked about deals and partnerships ... and he only replied re partnerships?

$ABVX degen traders dumping the stock on a CNBC article saying exactly what I’ve been saying since the trial hit back in July, and what was already blatantly obvious from the earnings release yesterday. WAITING FOR MAINTENANCE DATA is the ideal negotiating leverage. Read the quote below from the CEO. It could not be more obvious to me that this is the correct strategy. Catalyst wait times don’t get a lot shorter than 3 months in biotech, btw. CHILL. cnbc.com/2026/03/24/abi…

@DueDoctor Don’t say something like this on abivax earnings call day…

Big news coming soon 🫡🫡🫡

@a_a_free Why would it be 1L when Dupi goes off patent in 2031?

Clearly $APGE will eat the 1L market for AD. Congrats to long.

@Maximus_Holla Doesn‘t the prospect of higher energy costs - inflation - higher rates impair the qxo strategy?

@kashfulmahjoob1 @Andre_AGTC Not in conviction LTs ... specially with this name that can get bought any day ... dont wanna miss that... qxo also wanna keep 3-5 years and dont mind adding big dips

Funny thing about Twitter… nobody ever loses money here. Only winners. I always try to post both ways! I’m currently down about $750K from ATH. Mainly: • $320K from $ABVX (when it went down from $150) • $240K from $QXO (when it went down from $27.61 ) Rest here and there! Those are still my two biggest positions and I’m holding both. Could’ve been worse but I cut some speculative names when mentioned cleaning, put on some hedges, and a few other bios held up well and even went higher! When markets get choppy with macro & geopolitical noise, the goal isn’t to force trades every day. The goal is to protect capital and control downside. Survival first. Opportunity comes later.

@LucasCrabapple @tradingsssss @pmill145 @financebully @HOThomasWPhelps @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App No, exactly not like tylenol.

@cluelessbio @tradingsssss @pmill145 @financebully @HOThomasWPhelps @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App You mean like Tylenol?

$CRVS ITK in Pfizer's radar - creating pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41803126/

@tradingsssss @pmill145 @financebully @HOThomasWPhelps @LucasCrabapple @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App Idiosyncratic liver tox is about the drug meeting a patient with rare biology, 1:1000, and cooking this patients liver, even if the other 999 have zero issues with the drug. It is about rare but catastrophic tox. At least ask a LLM..

@cluelessbio @pmill145 @financebully @HOThomasWPhelps @LucasCrabapple @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App Still crazy that you didn't see any liver elevations at 600mg BID dosed for 6 months 😂

@pmill145 @tradingsssss @financebully @HOThomasWPhelps @LucasCrabapple @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App nib + high daily dose + molecular size 400-600 + estimated lipophilicity. Its a bad combination.

@cluelessbio @tradingsssss @financebully @HOThomasWPhelps @LucasCrabapple @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App You're saying this because soq is a nib drug and you're lumping them all together (despite newer nibs being safer) or something about soq specifically that makes you think that in larger N and longer time a liver signal will develop?

@tradingsssss @financebully @pmill145 @HOThomasWPhelps @LucasCrabapple @wjhuber5 @Quartr_App All of you talking down liver risk after 25 patient-years of data (or something like that) really have no clue. You‘ve spend zero time trying to understand the idiosyncratic risk for severe DILI and the mechanisms that cause it.

2-3 month dosing periods is more than enough to mitigate any liver risk that hasn't been seen so far If we didn't have any dosing data past that, then I'd have some caution with liver risk, but we do You have immunocompromised PTCL patients and ALPS adolescent patients taking the drug for more than a year at 200mg BID and have 5-7 month data on PTCL patients at 400 and 600mg BID!!!!

@Biohazard3737 Agree. What can be targeted by a biologic instead of a small molecule, should be. Think it didn‘t help that the first „biologics“ (besides insulin) were TNFi. Had it all started with IL23i, biologics would have a different perception.

@PersimmonTI It does not mention the entrance into exclusive negotiations with AZN but mentions that abivax currently isn‘t free to negotiate with others 🙄 Sooo abvx currently isn‘t negotiating with anyone?

$ABVX La Lettre has posted a clarification on LinkedIn regarding its article about $AZN interest: “Clarification on the possible sale of Abivax and the LA LETTRE article of March 13, 2026 📣 Several financial media outlets distorted the content of the LA LETTRE article based on a communication from the biotech company Abivax. To remove any ambiguity, La Lettre does not mention the entry into exclusive negotiations of AstraZeneca with Abivax. The information relates to access only granted to Astra Zeneca to the Abivax data room.” ————————— This clarification, along with the OG article, which La Lettre prominently displayed in English and free of charge, suggests that this is a matter of some import for the French financial news publication. They are staking their reputation on this… And as to the content — there is some prior precedent in biotech M&A negotiations for access to (further) data being granted selectively to a single party based on the stage and progress of those specific negotiations over and above initial multi-party talks. One thing certain — March 23 is the date of $ABVX 2025 Full Year Financial Report and earnings release… The company may have ample incentive to report any other big news by/on that date as well. I think that $ABVX will be bought, and likely soon.

Krys is not working on this to my knowledge. But I think they really really should. There are no treatments for androgenic alopecia that don‘t have systemic antiandrogenic sides effects. Can‘t be good to put millions of young men on these drugs for years. Thanks for reading

$krys A viable approach to preventing and reversing (some) hair loss would be using krys topical HSV-1 platform to deliver an AR siRNA template or something similar. The tropism of HSV1 MIGHT prevent systemic side effects. 2/

$mane Minox is an antiandrogen just like every other drug that works for androg alop and will effect your erection quality and sex drive. Btw if applying minox topically all over your head instead of just some areas, as you should, more of it goes systemic than 2.5 mg oral. 1/

@Respekchemistry @AlpBugraBasat Was hoping it is some selective AHR agonist that bypasses this risk but this slide kind if killed that hope for me. Really appreciate all your commentary on X.

$EQ $ABVX Don't overlook. So far so good!

$nktr $apge Can someone explain to me how tightly regulated sequence of therapy in regards to costs is in the US? My assumption is that if Dupixent goes off patent, the Dupixent biosimilar will be required as first line biologic before other advanced therapies like apg777.

@A_May_MD In your experience and estimate, how many patients complain about ocular symptoms like dryness, don‘t switch because you or they don‘t see a viable alternative now, but would switch if there was one (like rezpeg)?

I've got to complain about $APGE again.  You're welcome to take my opinion with a grain of salt since I've disclosed that I am short, but IMO they are spewing absolutely *blatant* bullshit about ISRs (add them to the LLY legal team!).  I heard them in 2 recent calls saying that "the most common reason for discontinuing Dupixent is ISRs".  Huh?  What?!  ISRs are the most common cause of stopping Dupi??? That is absolutely INSANE to me, because I have treated hundreds of patient with Dupixent and LITERALLY NOT EVER (NOT ONCE) HAVE I HAD TO DISCONTINUE A PATIENT'S DUPIXENT BECAUSE OF ISRs.  In fact, I've never even had to go as far as giving them advice on how to mitigate ISRs, such as treating the injection site with a cold compress.  Literally:  Nothing. Ever.  In hundreds of patients.  I *have* discontinued patients due to conjunctivitis.  If we are talking AEs, the most common causes for discontinuation in *my* experience are  1) Conjunctivitis 2) Facial erythema (some derms believe this to be psoriasis caused by the drug) ***gap*** 3) Joint pain (rare) Again, I can't even rank ISRs on that list at all because *LITERALLY* this has never ever happened with any of my patients. So, that is *my* clinical experience, which goes directly in the face of what $APGE is claiming.  I say that I've literally never even seen it happen, yet $APGE says that ISRs are the literal top cause of dupixent discontinuations...Sure, I'm biased, but so are they.  They want to convince you that conjunctivitis is not a big deal because they've seen higher rates of that side effect than dupixent/ebglyss so far.  Instead, they want to create a strawman side effect that they can point at and say... "Hey, we caused more conjunctivitis so far, but it's actually ISRs that are the problem!" So, if we are both biased, what can we do to resolve the discrepancy?  Look at the actual clinical data!  In clinical trials, were patients more likely to discontinue from conjunctivitis, or from ISRs?  Let's look at the actual data! P3 5-year extension trials (n~2700): -> 14 patients discontinued due to conjunctivitis  -> Zero (?) patients discontinuing due to ISRs?  ISR is not even listed as a reason for discontinuation in the publication. Real world dataset from the Netherlands (n~1300): -> 38 patients discontinued due to conjunctivitis...the most common cause of AE-related discontinuation in the study *by far* -> 2nd place for discontinuations was muscle/joint pain -> Yet again...***ZERO*** cases of discontinuation due to ISR.  None.  ZERO! So, $APGE is going out on these roadshows and repeatedly telling everyone that ISRs are literally the single most common cause of dupixent discontinuation, yet with only a few minutes of research you can get to a sample size of ~4,000 patients treated with dupixent for multiple years showing DOZENS of cases of discontinuation due to ISRs and LITERALLY NOT ONE SINGLE CASE of discontinuation from ISRs...Again, this matches my clinical experience precisely, where conjunctivitis is the most common cause and I've *never* seen ISRs drive discontinuation once. So WTF is $APGE talking about?  How are they making this bold claim that goes directly in the face of the entire body of medical evidence?  Well, if you read the tiny footnote in this slide from their corporate deck, this bold claim is apparently coming from "independent market research" via some sort of physician survey... ...ok.  Well, hopefully I don't have to convince people that you can design a survey such that it gives you almost any result you want.  IDK how this internal dataset looks, how it was collected, etc etc, so I can't tell you exactly what's wrong with it.  But, I can tell you that across my own clinical experience and literally THOUSANDS of patients in the literature, I cannot find a SINGLE case of discontinuation due to ISR, whereas there are DOZENS of confirmed cases due to conjunctivitis. Yet here is $APGE going around and repeatedly spreading the same ISR FUD that the $LLY legal team has tried to invent in order to screw over $NKTR.  You can take my biased word that this is absolute bullshit if you want, but fortunately thousands of patients worth of objective clinical data happen to be on my side here.  I think $APGE is absolutely *Full*. *Of*. *Shit*. with this ISR vs conjunctivitis nonsense.   Fortunately for me, the publicly available data unequivocally agree.

@WeRNerHelicase @A_May_MD Might really be IL4/13i doing (almost) all the work. But might not matter. If it comes with slightly better efficacy (due to dosing) than dupi and a TSLP-add-on for marketing purposes, might still sell very well. Getting the dosing right can help a lot (see abbvie and rinvoq).

@cluelessbio @A_May_MD im not 100% convinced its that much better than dupi -- look at the phase 2 in dupi at higher doses, its just possible its dosing higher

I swear I've never seen a market understand a disease/disease landscape worse than atopic derm. The $NKTR and $APGE price actions are absolutely WRONG today, and I'll tell you why. Apparently (?) the market is selling $NKTR today because of $PFE data with their phase 2 IL4/13+TSLP data this morning. If you asked me before the market opened if I thought this would affect $NKTR at all I would've said "no". In fact, in private conversations before open I did just that. The $PFE drug is yet another IL4/13 axis drug, adding in TSLP, which has a checkered past and may or may not actually add to IL4/13 blockade (there is both some reason to believe that the target is not active in AtD at al and/or that it is not additive to IL4/13 since these are all heavily TH2-skewed targets). The $PFE drug vies for first line positioning, where IL4/13 is used... ...for the millionth time...THE ENTIRE POINT OF $NKTR'S DRUG IS TO BE USED ***AFTER*** IL4/13 DRUGS. There is no world in which a patient should fail an IL4/13+TSLP drug and then go onto a plain old IL4/13 drug....This is where a completely differentiated MoA like NKTR's is needed...this is the *ENTIRE* point of the drug... So who could the $PFE news actually significantly affect? $APGE!!! $APGE is trying to develop long acting IL4/13 drugs to take their share of this first line IL4/13 market...the $PFE news gives them a DIRECT competitor in that market, with $PFE's drug adding an extra MoA that $APGE lacks. $APGE went with OX40 as their IL4/13 combo partner target, because they observed that TSLP had failed in prior trials and that the TSLP pathway simply overlaps with IL4/13 (meaning it might be a redundant target). $APGE went with OX40, which as we all now know is potentially dead in AtD due to cancer risks. So, $APGE should be down today, right? Right?! They now have a direct competitor in $PFE that is vying for space in their same line of therapy/target. New competitive risk, right?! Well, $APGE is *GREEN* today, while $NKTR is -10%. This. Market. Reaction. Is. Wrong. Period. These price actions should be reversed by any sane logic. If you want to argue $APGE should be flat/green because the AtD market is so massive that it can handle more drugs, then fine. But there is absolutely ZERO reason for $NKTR to be -10% while $APGE is green on this "news". $PFE is a DIRECT competitor for $APGE versus an oblique competitor for $NKTR at worst. I cannot comprehend how it is possible that people STILL do not understand the "differentiated MoA" use case of $NKTR's rezpeg. It is truly hard for me to fathom how a market can be this STUPID and inefficient. As far as market inefficiencies go, the AtD space is the gift that keeps on giving. Absolutely insane. Yet again, moving more stuff to buy $NKTR -10%. I'd love short more $APGE >$73 too...but alas, capital constraints push more to the better r/r of the two. There's clearly no competition there AFAIC.