Thomas Friedman, "Mother Nature and the Middle Class": More Road Apples from a Would-Be Middle East Expert

Who would ever imagine? Today, we are blessed with more steaming horse apples from would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Mother Nature and the Middle Class" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/mother-nature-and-the-middle-class.html). Friedman writes:

"IF you fell asleep 30 years ago, woke up last week and quickly scanned the headlines in Iran and Egypt you could be excused for saying, 'I didn’t miss a thing.' The military and the Muslim Brotherhood are still slugging it out along the Nile, and Iranian pragmatists and ideologues are still locked in a duel for control of their Islamic Revolution.

. . . .

And that’s why two of the most interesting leaders to watch today are President Rouhani of Iran and Egypt’s new military strongman, Gen. Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. Both men rose up in the old order, but both men were brought into the top leadership by the will of their emergent middle classes and newly empowered citizens, and neither man will be able to maintain order without reforming the systems that produced them — making them more sustainable and inclusive."

Both men were brought into power "by the will of their emergent middle classes and newly empowered citizens"? Sorry, but Rouhani's candidacy needed to be approved by Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, and for better or for worse, el-Sisi came to power in Egypt as the result of a military coup.

"Neither man will be able to maintain order without reforming the systems that produced them — making them more sustainable and inclusive"? Rouhani is going to make life "more inclusive" for Iran's Kurds, Sunnis, Baha'is and homosexuals? Yeah, right.

General el-Sisi is going to yield power in Egypt in the near future, but not before empowering Egyptian women and Egypt's significant Coptic Christian minority? I wouldn't bet on it.

Thanks, Tom. My guess is that if I were to fall asleep and wake up in another 30 years, you would still be writing this rot.

Maureen Dowd, "America’s Billionaire": Buy What You Know, or, Buy What You Don't Know (After Learning It)?

Unlike Warren Buffett, I don't give stock market advice. Moreover, I long ago reached the conclusion that I will not invest in companies where I do not interact with management. In addition, it's my belief that if a product being created by a company is too easily understood by me, it's ultimately going to be copied in China.

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "America’s Billionaire" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/dowd-americas-billionaire.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd describes a discussion between Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and Warren Buffett, which took place before an audience of 700 Georgetown students and faculty. Dowd writes:

"Speaking to an excited crowd of students and others Thursday night beneath soaring stained-glass windows, the 83-year-old Warren Buffett offered inspiring lessons in patriotism and compassion — traits sorely missing here as Republicans ran headlong toward a global economic cataclysm and gutted the food stamp program.

'I am sorry I’m late,' Nancy Pelosi murmured sardonically, as she arrived at the Buffett event. 'We were busy taking food out of the mouths of babies.'"

Don't get me wrong: I oppose Republican efforts to shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded. I also oppose "gutting" the food stamp program. But Pelosi demeaning someone else's morality? It was Pelosi who met with Syrian tyrant Bashar al-Assad in 2007 and infamously declared, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." Some six years later, this past August 21st, Assad killed nearly 1,500 people with sarin gas, of whom more than 400 were children.

But back to Buffett. Dowd tells us:

"He doesn’t worry about keeping up with modern technology. He buys what he knows, like Coca-Cola, which he drank all evening."

Well, I'm not about to drink Coca-Cola all evening. Thank you, Coca-Cola won't dissolve your teeth overnight, but I'm not obese - nor do I intend to become so. Diet Cola? I prefer to feed my caffeine addiction with coffee.

But more to the point, is it all about making money? Or does the possibility also exist to make money by investing in endeavors, which, unlike Coca-Cola, can contribute to humanity?

But how to invest in biotech or medical devices without losing your shirt? Not easy. But for me it begins with my desire to be overwhelmed by the science. When I meet with a company's scientists, I want to feel that I am the dumbest person in the room.

Late in the second half of the game, I am blessed to be able to work with two remarkable companies seeking to change the world in which we live.

Compugen, which is revolutionizing the manner in which new drugs and diagnostics are discovered, has spent the past decade building an infrastructure of proprietary scientific understandings, predictive platforms, algorithms, and machine learning systems for the in silico (by computer) prediction and selection of product candidates. Although Compugen is the vision of Martin Gerstel, who in the past guided Alza, a drug delivery company, to success, the ongoing realization of Mr. Gerstel's dream is in the hands of some 50 geniuses who have collectively integrated their diverse fields of knowledge - no small endeavor. I meet and talk regularly with Mr. Gerstel and Compugen's management and scientific team. Although I am overwhelmed by their intellects, I have never encountered arrogance or condescension. Quite the contrary: I have always experienced smiles and angelic patience as their scientists have explained to me their latest achievements.

A month ago, Compugen announced that it had signed a licensing deal with Bayer HealthCare involving two immune checkpoint regulators discovered by Compugen. Immune checkpoint regulators? Cancer immunotherapy? As explained by Compugen in their press release describing the deal (http://cgen.com/press-releases/212-compugen-announces-collaboration-and-license-agreement-with-bayer-for-antibody-based-cancer-immunotherapies):

"The immunotherapy approach aims at combatting cancer by stimulating the body´s own immune cells. The tumor and its environment suppress the ability of cancer patients to develop an effective anti-tumor immune response and in this way protect both tumor growth and survival.

. . . .

Latest cancer immunotherapies have demonstrated impressive clinical benefit, even for end-stage patients with difficult-to-treat tumors such as metastatic melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer. Unlike conventional cancer therapies, which act by directly targeting the cancer cells, resulting often in only transient clinical responses as cancer cells become resistant, clinical responses to cancer immunotherapy tend to be durable, sometimes resulting in dramatic long term survival and absence of resistance or recurrences."

Exciting science? You bet! And last week, Compugen announced experimental results for yet another immune checkpoint protein that it discovered, CGEN-15049 (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/compugen-target-for-cancer.html):

“CGEN-15049 has demonstrated the ability to regulate an impressive array of different types of immune cells, therefore offering unique potential as a target for monoclonal antibody immunotherapy for many types of cancers and further contributing to the diversity of Compugen's Pipeline Program candidates. More specifically, in vitro studies have shown that CGEN-15049 both inhibits Natural Killer cells, which are important for innate immune responses, and modulates the activity of types of T cells that constitute a crucial component of the adaptive anti-tumor immune response. In this respect, CGEN-15049 inhibits cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which normally act to recognize and kill tumor cells, and promotes inducible regulatory T cells, which play a central role in creating the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that reduce the ability of the immune system to fight the tumor.

In addition to its functional effect on multiple types of immune cells, CGEN-15049 is also expressed on a wide variety of cancers with high clinical unmet need, such as lung, ovarian, breast, colorectal, gastric, prostate and liver cancers. Notably, its expression can be detected both within the tumor epithelium of the cancers as well as on immune cells infiltrating these cancers. This expression pattern within the tumor microenvironment, combined with its immunomodulatory activity on immune cells involved in tumor progression, suggest a role for CGEN-15049 in suppressing anti-tumor immune response. Therefore, inhibition of CGEN-15049 activity by monoclonal antibody therapy, in certain cancer types, is predicted to result in allowing the activation of an anti-tumor immune response and potentially eliminating the tumor itself.”

Hard to understand? Yes, but worth making the effort. Where might you even begin to learn about immune checkpoint therapy for cancer? "Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) for Dummies," of course (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/monoclonal-antibodies-mabs-for-dummies.html).

Nano Retina, which is the brainchild of renowned medical device inventor Yossi Gross and nanotechnology icon Jim Von Ehr, is seeking to create a miniaturized retinal implant to restore vision to persons blinded by age-related macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa following a 30-minute minimally invasive operation. A video is worth a thousand words? Have a look for yourselves:



Again, I have only known kindness and caring from the founders and small team of scientists responsible for this breakthrough project.

Innovation is premised upon vision, ambition, teamwork and no small amount of sweat and lack of sleep. Temerity, rapacity and insensitivity are unnecessary ingredients.

So, do you buy what you know, or, do you buy what you don't know (after learning it)?

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized, approved or reviewed prior to posting by Compugen.]

Gail Collins, "Knowing When to Worry": Did Gail's Op-ed Violate New York Times "Ethical Journalism" Guidelines?

Shut down the US government unless Obamacare is defunded? The attempt by the US House of Representatives to kill Obamacare is draconian and apt to do more damage than good. Of course, Obamacare is a disaster, and there is a reason why the Obama administration continues to delay its implementation (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960).

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Knowing When to Worry" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/opinion/collins-knowing-when-to-worry.html?_r=0), Gail Collins mocks the effort by the Republican-controlled House to quash the Affordable Health Care Act. Collins drolly writes:

"The bill the House sent to the Senate on Friday doesn’t even make much sense. The 'defund Obamacare' part looks as though it was written by squirrels. If it became law, Obamacare would actually continue to exist. At most, the administration would be crippled in their early efforts to get younger uninsured Americans to sign up for health coverage. (This would presumably give the opposition more time to run those ads that show a young woman being given a pelvic exam by a monster Uncle Sam doll.) And, meanwhile, the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program would be thrown into chaos, as well as payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients."

But are the Republicans as loony as Collins makes them out to be? Have a look at Kathleen Parker's most recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Waiting for Obamacare" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-waiting-for-obamacare/2013/09/20/1eae4f96-2232-11e3-966c-9c4293c47ebe_story.html?hpid=z2), in which Parker makes the case that Obamacare needs to be delayed (actually, what is being done by the Obama administration) and not defunded. Parker observes in no-nonsense fashion:

"[T]he Affordable Care Act (ACA) is becoming increasingly unpopular. Only 39 percent of Americans currently favor the health-care program, compared with 51 percent in January, according to a recent CNN/ORC International poll.

Some of the reasons:

●Many companies are cutting worker hours to below the threshold (30 hours) at which they're required to comply with Obamacare. (SeaWorld is cutting hours for thousands of workers.)

●Others are cutting workers completely to avoid compliance or to reduce costs associated with the expanded coverage. (The Cleveland Clinic cited Obamacare as one reason for offering early retirement to 3,000 workers and hinting at future layoffs.)

●Many young people, unemployed or earning little, will have trouble paying premiums once open enrollment for health insurance exchanges begins Oct. 1. Even discounts won’t be enough for some, who then will face fines or have to turn to parents who face their own insurance challenges. List-price premiums for a 40-year-old buying a mid-range plan will average close to $330 per month, according to a recent Avalere Health study. For someone who is 60, premiums will run about $615 a month. Forget retirement."

Parker's conclusion:

"If we can delay sending cruise missiles to Syria pending a better solution, perhaps there’s some sense to delaying a health-care overhaul that creates unacceptable collateral damage to citizens and that is not quite ready for public consumption."

As acknowledged even by the Obama administration, as evidenced by its delays in implementing the law, Parker is right.

But let's go back to Collins. Did Collins's op-ed violate the "Ethical Journalism" guidelines (http://nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf) of The New York Times? Item 6 of the handbook of the Times provides:

"[N]o one may do anything that damages The Times’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government."

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama consulted on August 29 with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. It would appear that as a result of this "off-the-record" meeting, Obama suddenly decided to seek congressional approval for his proposed "limited" strike against the Assad regime.

The meeting, in which Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, not a particularly bright light (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), participated together with op-ed staffers, including Collins, and members of the editorial board, was not reported by the Times.

A simple question: Is it acceptable for the editorial and op-ed staff of the Times to meet with the president, offer their advice, and then opine - almost always favorably - on the president's actions? Can it be said that this advisory session deprived all of its participants of whatever was left of their impartiality?

What advice concerning Obamacare was given to the president during this shindig by New York Times staffers?

Care to answer, Gail?

Paul Krugman, "The Crazy Party": The Crazy Newspaper

So that there is no misunderstanding: I don't like Republicans. I don't like Democrats. I don't like politicians. But I especially hate when a newspaper manages a nation's foreign policy.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Crazy Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/opinion/krugman-the-crazy-party.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman again takes aim at Republicans and explains how the "crazy party" is preparing to shut down the US government. Krugman writes:

"Yet, at the moment, it seems highly likely that the Republican Party will refuse to fund the government, forcing a shutdown at the beginning of next month, unless President Obama dismantles the health reform that is the signature achievement of his presidency. Republican leaders realize that this is a bad idea, but, until recently, their notion of preaching moderation was to urge party radicals not to hold America hostage over the federal budget so they could wait a few weeks and hold it hostage over the debt ceiling instead. Now they’ve given up even on that delaying tactic. The latest news is that John Boehner, the speaker of the House, has abandoned his efforts to craft a face-saving climbdown on the budget, which means that we’re all set for shutdown, possibly followed by debt crisis."

Ah, yes, Obama's "signature legislation," of which Democratic Senator Max Baucus, who assisted in writing the Affordable Care Act, stated, "I just see a huge train wreck coming down." This is the same "signature legislation" whose problematic implementation was again delayed last month by the president (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960).

Dialogue? I'm all in favor. But consider what the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said a few days ago about America's financial future (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44521):

"Between 2009 and 2012, the federal government recorded the largest budget deficits relative to the size of the economy since 1946, causing federal debt to soar. Federal debt held by the public is now about 73 percent of the economy’s annual output, or gross domestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. history except a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of 2007. If current laws generally remained in place, federal debt held by the public would decline slightly relative to GDP over the next several years, CBO projects. After that, however, growing deficits would ultimately push debt back above its current high level. CBO projects that federal debt held by the public would reach 100 percent of GDP in 2038, 25 years from now, even without accounting for the harmful effects that growing debt would have on the economy (see the figure below). Moreover, debt would be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy, a trend that could not be sustained indefinitely."

Yes, the US is headed for a breakdown, and strong medicine, of the kind that a lame duck Obama administration is incapable of dispensing, is urgently needed.

But as I said earlier, I especially hate it when a dysfunctional Obama administration, in a fit of psychosis and despair, allows a newspaper to dictate its foreign policy. I kid you not.

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama consulted on August 29 with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. It would appear that as a result of this "off-the-record" meeting, Obama suddenly decided to seek congressional approval for his proposed "limited" strike against the Assad regime.

The meeting, in which Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, not a particularly bright light (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/is-new-york-times-columnist-maureen.html), participated together with op-ed staffers (e.g., Gail Collins, who knows absolutely nothing about the Middle East) and members of the editorial board, was not reported by the Times.

We also learned from Calderone's article that a former Obama adviser is claiming that Obama only reads the Times.

What is most frightening about all of the above? That Obama only reads the Times, a "psycho-phantic" newspaper which has grown infamous for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel biases (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html and http://www.camera.org/images_user/pdf/NYT%20study%20exec%20summary_ind.pdf)?

Or perhaps that Obama saw fit to take advice on Syria from highly politicized Times op-ed writers, such as Gail Collins, who know absolutely nothing about the Middle East?

Or perhaps that Obama was swayed by the editorial board of the Times, whose recent editorials on the subject of Syria (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-diplomatic.html) are most kindly characterized as delusional?

Or perhaps that his portrayal by the only newspaper that he reads is more important to the president than making decisions based upon something as straightforward as . . . morality?

And why does Obama only read the Times? Could it be that this narcissistic man cannot bear to confront criticism dished out by other newspapers?

Indeed, we live in deeply disturbing, depressing and demented Times.

Michael Calderone, "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push": Obama Only Reads the Anti-Semitic Times?

As I write this blog item, I am reaching for my airsickness bag.

Michael Calderone, the Senior Media Reporter for The Huffington Post, tells us in an article entitled "New York Times Editors, Columnists Met With Obama During Syria Push" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=media), that Obama recently consulted with editorial and op-ed staffers from The New York Times regarding his meandering Syria policy. As reported by Calderone:

"On Aug. 29, the president again sat down for an off-the-record discussion with Rosenthal [editorial page editor of the Times] and some members of the editorial board, according to sources familiar with the meeting. Times opinion columnists David Brooks, Gail Collins and Ross Douthat also attended, but editors for the paper's news pages did not.

The meeting came amid the White House’s push for military intervention in Syria, one of the topics discussed that day.

. . . .

On the afternoon of Aug. 30, Secretary of State John Kerry made the case that Syria had used chemical weapons, signaling that U.S. retaliation for crossing a 'red line' drawn by Obama could be imminent. But the Times still seemed unconvinced that immediate action was the best course.

In an editorial posted online Aug. 30 and in the next day's paper, Times editors wrote that 'even in the best of circumstances, military action could go wrong in so many ways; the lack of strong domestic and international support will make it even more difficult.'

The Times also noted that Obama's 'approach on Syria now seems wholly at odds with the strong position' he took as a candidate in 2007.

. . . .

On the evening of Aug. 30, Obama reportedly decided to seek congressional approval for a strike during a talk with chief of staff Denis McDonough. He announced his decision publicly the following day.

Rosenthal did not respond to requests for comment about the Aug. 29 meeting and a Times spokeswoman declined to discuss the specifics of that gathering.

. . . .

[T]he Obama White House has long seemed particularly interested in getting its point of view across in the Times, and the president has said he reads all the paper's columnists. In April, a former adviser said the Times is the only paper Obama reads."

Okay, what is most frightening about all of the above? That Obama only reads the Times, a newspaper which has grown increasingly infamous for its anti-Semitic and anti-Israel biases (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/02/stench-of-anti-semitism-at-new-york.html and http://www.camera.org/images_user/pdf/NYT%20study%20exec%20summary_ind.pdf)?

Or perhaps that Obama saw fit to consult with politicized Times op-ed writers, such as Gail Collins, who know absolutely nothing about the Middle East?

Or perhaps that Obama was swayed by the editorial board of The New York Times, whose recent editorials on the subject of Syria (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-diplomatic.html) are most kindly characterized as delusional?

Or perhaps that it is more important to Obama how he is portrayed by the media than making decisions based upon . . . morality?

Bottom line, as I have stated in the past: The New York Times should now toss aside its ethical journalism handbook and proudly advertise itself as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration.

David Ignatius, "Obama Is Criticized for Right Result on Syria": A Mass Murderer Gets Off Scot-Free

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama is criticized for right result on Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-obama-is-criticized-for-right-result-on-syria/2013/09/18/b2a08acc-1ffb-11e3-b7d1-7153ad47b549_story.html?hpid=z2), David Ignatius would have us believe that although messy, Obama's Syria policy has yielded the "right result." Ignatius declares:

● "Russia has been drawn into a process of collecting and destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal."

● "The United Nations has taken new steps to affirm the international norm against the use of chemical weapons."

● "The United States and Russia have restarted their push for negotiations in Geneva toward a cease-fire and a political transition in Syria."

● "Amid all this diplomacy, Obama has pressed ahead with a covert program of training and assistance for the moderate Syrian rebel forces headed by Gen. Salim Idriss."

Sorry, David, but Russia doesn't need to do a thing, and its sole motivation is to protect a rogue client regime, while undermining US influence and interests. Since the Korean War, the United Nations has repeatedly demonstrated its impotence. There is no cease-fire or political transition on the horizon in Syria. Training in Jordan of a limited number of Idriss's rebel fighters without the supply of advanced weaponry or the imposition of a no-fly zone is not going to tip any "balance" - not in the fighting with Assad's forces and not in terms of leadership of the rebellion against Assad.

Ignatius's conclusion:

"He can propose what the country wants, succeed at it and still get hammered as a failure."

Oh, really. As stated otherwise by none other than US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power on Monday, Assad perpetrated the "largest chemical weapons attack in 25 years," killing nearly 1,500 civilians in a single morning, and has now been given responsibility by Obama for dismantling his regime's chemical weapons stockpile. Punishment? None. Credible sanctions if Assad fails to eliminate this stockpile? None.

Excuse me, but where is the "success"? America's overseas credibility and power of deterrence have been destroyed by Obama.

But more to the point, perhaps it's time for Ignatius to re-examine the settings of his moral compass. Obama has let a mass murderer get off scot-free.

“Compugen Target for Cancer Immunotherapy Shown to Affect Multiple Immune Cell Types Involved in Tumor Progression”: CGEN's "Reply" to Cramer?

I don’t provide stock market advice, but did you happen to see Jim Cramer’s manic 50-second “take” on Compugen last Friday (see: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000199050&__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cquote%7Cvideo%7C&par=yahoo)? This stock market maven forgot to mention the total of nine novel immune checkpoint proteins predicted by the Company to date through the use of its unique predictive discovery infrastructure, although he did refer to the recent deal with Bayer involving only two of them.

Cramer also didn’t say that Compugen is currently using its predictive capabilities as part of a second focused discovery program for antibody drug conjugate cancer therapy. In addition, Cramer failed to note that in July, Compugen announced a new Predictive Structural Biology Infrastructure Platform for enhanced discovery of novel drugs.

Mind you, the key word in all of the above is “predictive.”

Unbeknownst to Cramer, Compugen, over the course of the past decade, has created a predictive capability for the development of new drugs and diagnostics that is cutting-edge, world-leading and disruptive.

Of course, I can’t fault Cramer. He is busy with the graphs, trading patterns and day to day movements of hundreds of public companies. Compugen, on the other hand, is merely seeking to change the way that medicines are discovered for unmet medical needs. Ultimately, I believe that Cramer will necessarily become better acquainted with Compugen, which is something of a rara avis and deserving of more than a cursory “technical” stock market review.

Regarding Compugen’s press release yesterday, “Compugen Target for Cancer Immunotherapy Shown to Affect Multiple Immune Cell Types Involved in Tumor Progression” (see: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/compugen-target-cancer-immunotherapy-shown-122200238.html), the Company announced experimental results for a third Compugen-discovered checkpoint, CGEN-15049 (my highlights in red):

“CGEN-15049 has demonstrated the ability to regulate an impressive array of different types of immune cells, therefore offering unique potential as a target for monoclonal antibody immunotherapy for many types of cancers and further contributing to the diversity of Compugen's Pipeline Program candidates. More specifically, in vitro studies have shown that CGEN-15049 both inhibits Natural Killer cells, which are important for innate immune responses, and modulates the activity of types of T cells that constitute a crucial component of the adaptive anti-tumor immune response. In this respect, CGEN-15049 inhibits cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which normally act to recognize and kill tumor cells, and promotes inducible regulatory T cells, which play a central role in creating the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that reduce the ability of the immune system to fight the tumor.

In addition to its functional effect on multiple types of immune cells, CGEN-15049 is also expressed on a wide variety of cancers with high clinical unmet need, such as lung, ovarian, breast, colorectal, gastric, prostate and liver cancers. Notably, its expression can be detected both within the tumor epithelium of the cancers as well as on immune cells infiltrating these cancers. This expression pattern within the tumor microenvironment, combined with its immunomodulatory activity on immune cells involved in tumor progression, suggest a role for CGEN-15049 in suppressing anti-tumor immune response. Therefore, inhibition of CGEN-15049 activity by monoclonal antibody therapy, in certain cancer types, is predicted to result in allowing the activation of an anti-tumor immune response and potentially eliminating the tumor itself.”

Compugen’s CEO, Anat Cohen-Dayag, further explained in the press release:

“A novel immune checkpoint protein offers the potential for development of multiple therapeutic products for both immunology and oncology, depending on its mode of action and function. Also, it is believed that different checkpoints are likely to be expressed on different cancers and within a specific type of cancer, in different patient populations. Therefore, identifying multiple cancer-associated immune checkpoints is of significant interest in allowing for the treatment of larger patient populations.”

Yes, there is reason to be excited by Compugen’s predictive immune checkpoint discoveries, providing a growing arsenal of potential weapons, which can be "mixed and matched" in the war against cancer.

Regarding Compugen, Cramer recommended that investors "wait for more partnerships and perhaps some success in the pipeline." Again, I do not provide stock market advice, but I would certainly regard yesterday's announcement by Compugen as "success in the pipeline." "More partnerships"? Let's see how long it takes Compugen to license out CGEN-15049, given Big Pharma's ravenous appetite for immune checkpoints.

But more to the point, I would suggest that Cramer is missing the bigger picture: The in silico (by computer) prediction and discovery by Compugen of its nine novel immune checkpoint proteins required only months as opposed to decades of worldwide research needed to find the limited number of previously known immune checkpoints (see slides 11 and 15 of Compugen's current corporate presentation available via its website).

You see, Compugen is not about any one candidate in its pipeline. Rather, it is the Company's predictive science, poised to have a far-reaching impact on the future of medicine, which deserves our attention.

[As noted in prior blog entries, I am a Compugen shareholder, this blog entry is not a recommendation to buy or sell Compugen shares, and in September 2009 I began work as a part-time external consultant to Compugen. The opinions expressed herein are mine and are based on publicly available information. This blog entry has not been authorized, approved or reviewed prior to posting by Compugen.]