Roche, Amgen, Merck and Otsuka all announced Phase 3 wins without effect sizes, Telix pays $1.65B for a rejected drug, and Lilly’s once-weekly insulin gets approved (Sep 17-24, 2026).
I get that it's earnings season and announcements without numbers can help pad stock drops or bump for quick gains, it is annoying that they aren't more open about numbers...esp when 42% of phase 3 trials don't actually make it to market.
The conclusion does not follow from the observation. You say this cannot last because the numbers surface at the medical meetings anyway. The gap is a quarter. A quarter is long enough to raise, to close a deal, to set a comparator. Nothing was withheld. It was timed. The one company that disclosed fell 13%, and everyone else read that result correctly.
This was a great roundup, and the Galleri section is the sharpest part of it. Your line that finding more cancers and saving lives aren't the same thing is the distinction the whole panel debate turns on.
The two NHS-Galleri numbers you put side by side make that point even more concrete. If stage 4 diagnoses fell 14% but stage 3 and 4 combined didn't move (IRR 1.03), then stage 3 must have gone up by roughly what stage 4 lost. That reads less like early detection and more like catching late disease slightly less late, which is a much thinner basis for a mortality benefit than the headline suggests. It may also be part of why effectiveness split 6-4 while safety was unanimous.
Curious whether you think payers will anchor on that stage 3 shift or on the stage 4 number when coverage gets argued.
I get that it's earnings season and announcements without numbers can help pad stock drops or bump for quick gains, it is annoying that they aren't more open about numbers...esp when 42% of phase 3 trials don't actually make it to market.
The conclusion does not follow from the observation. You say this cannot last because the numbers surface at the medical meetings anyway. The gap is a quarter. A quarter is long enough to raise, to close a deal, to set a comparator. Nothing was withheld. It was timed. The one company that disclosed fell 13%, and everyone else read that result correctly.
This was a great roundup, and the Galleri section is the sharpest part of it. Your line that finding more cancers and saving lives aren't the same thing is the distinction the whole panel debate turns on.
The two NHS-Galleri numbers you put side by side make that point even more concrete. If stage 4 diagnoses fell 14% but stage 3 and 4 combined didn't move (IRR 1.03), then stage 3 must have gone up by roughly what stage 4 lost. That reads less like early detection and more like catching late disease slightly less late, which is a much thinner basis for a mortality benefit than the headline suggests. It may also be part of why effectiveness split 6-4 while safety was unanimous.
Curious whether you think payers will anchor on that stage 3 shift or on the stage 4 number when coverage gets argued.