You’ve made it clear you’re not questioning COH’s credibility —...

You’ve made it clear you’re not questioning COH’s credibility — and that’s exactly why this situation warrants more balance.

MD Anderson Cancer Center is leading the trial, and their involvement alone brings a level of clinical and ethical oversight that shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. They wouldn't risk their standing on flimsy data or allow their name to be associated with a company that’s misrepresenting trial outcomes.

As for CHM — yes, healthy skepticism is fine, but the update was more than a “one-liner.” It outlined that two out of three patients achieved CRi, a meaningful and measurable clinical outcome, and that no safety issues have been observed so far. This is exactly the kind of early signal you’d expect in a Phase 1B study designed to evaluate whether CORE-NK cells can enhance the effectiveness of standard-of-care treatments like Azacitidine and Venetoclax.

Suggesting alarm bells solely based on timing or forum chatter doesn’t acknowledge the complexity or credibility of a study being run by one of the top cancer centres in the world.