Vaxart Inc (VXRT)

$VXRT Here’s how Chat sees the investment…and after 6 years in VXRT prison, I’m basically on the same page. 😂😂 This is definitely NOT a slam dunk…it’s more like throwing up a full-court shot while blindfolded, drunk, and hoping Sanofi is standing under the basket with a giant bag of money. 💰🏀🤣 But hey, I’ve already served 6 years of my sentence…might as well stick around and see how the movie ends. 😂🍿 GLTA!! 🙏🙏🤞🤞💪 From Chat: At roughly $0.50, I think Vaxart is more interesting as a speculative buy than it was at materially higher prices—but I would not call it a low-risk buying opportunity. The latest available quote I found was $0.50 on August 24. The bull case is clearer now. Vaxart has completed the ~400-person sentinel portion without vaccine-related serious adverse events, and the roughly 5,000-person main cohort is already dosed, with the complete Phase 2b readout expected in the first half of 2027. BARDA funding continues to support the trial, with total authorized funding around $344.8 million. The reason I wouldn’t go heavily into it today is financing. Vaxart reported $64 million of cash/investments at June 30 and runway only into Q2 2027. More importantly, its 10-Q explicitly says its existing resources aren’t sufficient to fund planned operations for the following 12 months and states there is “substantial doubt” about its ability to continue as a going concern without additional capital/partnership funding. It also acknowledges that Dynavax, now owned by Sanofi, can terminate the collaboration. So I see an unusually important timing issue: the major ~5,000-person Phase 2b data and the end of the currently projected cash runway are both approaching in roughly the same period. That’s why funding or a strategic commitment from Sanofi/Dynavax could be nearly as important to the stock as the clinical results themselves. For someone bullish on the technology, I’d view $0.50 as a reasonable place for a small speculative position, with additional capital held back. My preferred approach would be to add much more aggressively only after one of two things happens: (1) meaningful financing/Phase 3 support is secured, preferably non-dilutive or through Sanofi/Dynavax, or (2) the ~5,000-patient Phase 2b results materially validate the platform. Yes, you’d probably pay a higher share price after either event—but you’d also be buying a dramatically de-risked company. The biggest mistake, in my view, would be treating a $0.50 share price as evidence that the stock is automatically cheap. With an OTC clinical-stage biotech, $0.50 can become $0.25 just as easily as it can become $2+ if financing or trial expectations change. So my answer today is: buyable as a high-risk speculation, yes; a “back up the truck” opportunity, no. The next major funding/partnership development would materially change that assessment.

$VXRT NPIVS 2027 reminds me of ..

$VXRT I would rather have an adequate VXRT buyout.

$VXRT @Scootermn Traders comparing old ~$140M-$190M awards to NPIVS 2027 are comparing apples to spaceships. The old orders and NPIVS 2027 represent very different procurement structures. 1. 5 Years VS Up To 10 Years The Past: The old framework had a 5-year period, with awards structured around defined projects, manufacturing requirements and deliverables. VS NPIVS 2027: BARDA is establishing a 5-year base + 5-year option, creating a potential 10-year strategic relationship rather than just a single procurement period. 2. Supply Buys VS Sustained Readiness The Past: BARDA funded specific needs such as bulk antigen, adjuvant, manufacturing capacity or stockpile requirements. VS NPIVS 2027: The framework focuses on strengthening domestic influenza manufacturing capability over time — including manufacturing readiness, technology, regulatory/CMC work and response capability. Old BARDA = “Produce this.” NPIVS 2027 = “Maintain the capability to respond.”

$VXRT @Scootermn That difference matters more than comparing individual award sizes. 3. Isolated Task Funding VS Multi-Year Strategic Value The Past: Individual awards/orders could be ~$140M-$190M for specific manufacturing or supply requirements. Those figures should NOT be confused with the much larger ceiling of the old vehicle. VS NPIVS 2027: A 5-year base + 5-year option creates a potential 10-year relationship with selected manufacturers. The key isn't just the dollar amount. It's the duration, scope and recurring nature of the capability BARDA is seeking. The Takeaway: Old awards primarily bought products and defined deliverables. NPIVS 2027 is designed to buy sustained domestic influenza manufacturing capability. That's why comparing a historical ~$140M-$190M order directly to a new NPIVS award can be misleading. Proposals due October 30, 2026.

$VXRT @Elementary_Trader Again thank you for sharing this screenshot for the last clinical trial updates . Based on these latest updates, I believe Vaxart has the potential to remain independent without being acquired by Big Pharma. With strong clinical results and partnerships in one or two major infectious-disease programs, VXRT could potentially reach $120–$200/share within three years while expanding its oral vaccine platform into multiple respiratory and infectious diseases. Below are the key reasons behind my view: 1 — The real significance of this update In my opinion, the most interesting part isn’t the change from “Months” to “Days.” It’s the change in what the study itself is measuring. I also reviewed the latest published information on the study, and the screenshots appear consistent with the broader expansion of immune analyses following the BARDA modification. In the screenshots, red represents the old language being removed, while green represents the new language being added. I see three major changes. 2 — Much stronger focus on mucosal neutralizing antibodies Look at the new endpoints: • Saliva nAb • Nasal Lining Fluid (NLF) nAb • GMFR of SARS-CoV-2-specific NLF nAb • NLF IgA • Serum IgA/IgG/nAb This is important because the real question for Vaxart’s platform isn’t: Can the pill produce antibodies in the blood? Injected vaccines already do that. The more important question is: Can the pill generate functional neutralizing antibodies in the nose and saliva—the actual entry points of the virus? These changes directly target that question. 3 — Endpoints 22–26 are particularly interesting Especially endpoint 26: “Percentage of Participants With 2, 3, and 4 Fold Rise in S-Specific Serum IgG and IgA bAb, Serum nAb, Saliva IgA bAb, NLF IgA bAb, saliva nAb and NLF nAb” This is a very rich analysis design. They aren’t simply asking whether IgA increased. They’re measuring the percentage of participants achieving 2x, 3x, and 4x increases across a broad range of systemic and mucosal immune markers. This allows them to evaluate the strength and consistency of the immune response across participants rather than relying only on a single average. More importantly, they’re combining: Serum antibodies + Saliva + Nasal Lining Fluid + Neutralization That is exactly the type of dataset you would want when trying to characterize the immune signature of an oral vaccine. 4 — The timing is now much more precise Instead of: Month 1, 3, 6, 12 it now specifies: Days 31, 91, 181, 366 By itself, this is probably more of a protocol clarification than a major development. But the sequence: Day 1 → Day 31 → Day 91 → Day 181 → Day 366 provides a complete one-year immune-response curve. If Vaxart can demonstrate that mucosal responses are not only strong at Day 31 but remain detectable at Days 181 and 366, that would be far more meaningful than a temporary post-vaccination increase. 5 — Another change caught my attention Some older endpoints involving intracellular T-cell cytokines/cell-surface markers appear to have been reorganized, while the updated endpoints place greater emphasis on: NLF IgA + NLF neutralizing antibodies I would not conclude from these screenshots alone that they have “abandoned T-cells.” We would need the complete study change history to make that claim. But the visible direction clearly points toward deeper characterization of functional mucosal immunity. And that fits extremely well with the central scientific question around Vaxart’s VAAST platform. 6 — Why NLF neutralizing antibodies matter more than IgA alone Finding IgA in the nose is encouraging, but it doesn’t necessarily mean those antibodies can actually stop the virus. NLF neutralizing antibodies get much closer to the critical question: Can the antibodies present in the nose actually neutralize SARS-CoV-2? If Vaxart were to demonstrate: • Significant increases in NLF nAb • Durability over time • An association with reduced infection or symptoms then the scientific case becomes much stronger. 7 — This is where Correlates of Protection becomes interesting These screenshots do not mean a correlate of protection has been discovered. But they provide excellent components for searching for one. The framework would essentially be: Vaccination → Saliva/Nasal IgA & nAb → Measurements at Days 31/91/181/366 → COVID outcomes during follow-up Then statistically ask: Did participants with higher NLF IgA/nAb have a lower risk of COVID? If the answer is yes—and there is a strong, consistent dose-response relationship—the correlate-of-protection story becomes much more serious. 8 — Vaxart already has precedent for this biological concept In its norovirus program, machine-learning analyses identified immune markers statistically associated with protection from infection. Vaxart’s previous oral influenza vaccine work also showed that a mucosal-homing plasmablast response was associated with protection in a Phase 2 challenge study. So the company has previous evidence supporting this general biological concept across different pathogens. 9 — But we must keep the 400-person cohort in perspective We cannot confuse an immune signal with clinical efficacy. In the 400 participants, symptomatic cases were: Vaxart: 33 mRNA: 30 Asymptomatic cases: 12 vs. 12 And Vaxart itself made clear that the 400-person cohort was not powered to compare efficacy. Therefore, even if Vaxart eventually shows substantially stronger NLF nAb/IgA than mRNA, while case numbers remain similar, we cannot use the 400-person cohort alone to claim: “Vaxart is more effective.” What it could demonstrate is something different but still extremely important: Vaxart generates a qualitatively different mucosal immune response. The ~5,000-person cohort is what will help determine whether that immune difference translates into a meaningful clinical difference. 10 — That makes the ~5,000-person cohort critical The larger cohort is designed and statistically powered to compare relative efficacy and safety between oral Vaxart and the mRNA comparator, with the full readout expected in 2027. Imagine the eventual picture looks like this: Vaxart → NLF IgA ↑↑ → NLF nAb ↑↑ → Saliva nAb ↑↑ → Durable through 6–12 months And then the ~5,000-person cohort shows: → Lower symptomatic COVID or → Lower disease severity or → Fewer infections / shorter viral shedding That is where true platform validation begins. At that point, the story would no longer simply be: “The pill generates IgA.” It would become: “The pill generates a functional mucosal immune response, and that response is associated with meaningful clinical protection.” That type of evidence could potentially have implications far beyond COVID—including influenza and broader pandemic preparedness. 11 — My assessment of this update Administrative study update: 6/10 Some changes appear to be protocol clarification and more precise timing. Expansion of immune analysis: 8.5/10 Evidence that positive IgA results already exist: No. We cannot conclude that from these changes. Evidence that they are deeply investigating a functional mucosal immune signature: 9/10 And that last point is the most important one to me. 12 — Bottom line The screenshots don’t tell us what the results will be. But they give us a much clearer picture of the scientific question being asked. And that question has evolved beyond simply safety and immunogenicity: Does the oral vaccine generate functional mucosal neutralizing antibodies in the nose and saliva? Are those responses durable? And can they ultimately be linked to protection? That is what I’ll be watching closely. If Vaxart can demonstrate all three, I believe the implications could extend far beyond a single COVID vaccine. It could establish Vaxart’s oral platform as an important new approach to vaccination and potentially position the company as a major player in the future of vaccines. Regards Note: This thread was written and fact-checked with the assistance of AI.

$VXRT Lo and Watson have never had an opportunity to engage shareholders before? This ought to bring real change for sure.

$VXRT $VXRT guess Lo and Berg did few mins of work for this week …