GeoVax Provides Update on BARDA Project NextGen and Outlines 2025 Business Momentum
Company Reaffirms Commitment to Innovation in COVID-19, Oncology, and Biosecurity Amid Strategic Program Developments
ATLANTA, GA - April 16, 2025 ( NEWMEDIAWIRE ) - GeoVax Labs, Inc. (Nasdaq: GOVX), a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing vaccines and immunotherapies for infectious diseases and cancer, today addressed the termination of its Project NextGen (PNG) award by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), effective April 11, 2025. The Company also provided a comprehensive business update across its core programs, including the next-generation COVID-19 vaccine (GEO-CM04S1), cancer immunotherapy (Gedeptin(R)), Mpox/smallpox vaccine (GEO-MVA), and advanced MVA manufacturing process.
GeoVax expressed disappointment in the HHS/BARDA action but remains committed to the critical medical need addressed by GEO-CM04S1, particularly among the more than 40 million immunocompromised Americans - and over 400 million people globally - who remain inadequately protected by the current authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Thus far, clinical data in support of GEO-CM04S1 demonstrate encouraging support of the potential of GEO-CM04S1 for providing (a) more robust immune response, (b) increased durability and (c) protective immunity for those patients with depleted immune systems inadequately responding to the current authorized COVID-19 vaccines.
The Company also noted recent public statements by HHS leadership acknowledging the potential enhanced value of multi-antigen vaccines addressing respiratory viruses. Of special note is that GEO-CM04S1 was the only multi-antigen/polyvalent COVID-19 vaccine candidate selected under the PNG initiative.
'While the recent HHS/BARDA Stop Work Order action was disappointing and surprising, our commitment to protecting vulnerable populations remains unchanged, and our clinical momentum is strong in support of our ongoing Phase 2 GEO-CM04S1 programs,' said David Dodd, Chairman and CEO of GeoVax.
Continued Progress Across a Catalyst-Rich Pipeline
GEO-CM04S1: Advancing to Meet Unmet COVID-19 Needs
GEO-CM04S1 continues to demonstrate potential as both a primary and booster vaccine, especially in immunocompromised patients. Key milestones anticipated during 2025 include:
GEO-CM04S1 is a multi-antigen COVID-19 vaccine, utilizing a synthetic-MVA platform, expressing both S and N antigens, offering the potential for broader, more durable protection than current mRNA vaccines.
Gedeptin(R): Advancing into Phase 2 in Solid Tumors
GeoVax's oncology program, utilizing the Gedeptin(R) technology, is planned to progress to a Phase 2 trial in combination with an immune checkpoint inhibitor for first recurrent head and neck cancer. Gedeptin has received Orphan Drug designation for use among advanced head & neck cancer patients. The Gedeptin technology provides potential for expansion into other solid tumors including triple-negative breast cancer, melanoma, and soft tissue sarcoma.
GEO-MVA: Addressing Biosecurity and Global Vaccine Equity
GeoVax anticipates initiating clinical trials in 2025 for GEO-MVA, its Mpox/smallpox vaccine candidate. The Company has successfully produced cGMP clinical product and is focused on completing the vaccine vialing in support of initiating clinical evaluation during H2 2025. GEO-MVA positions GeoVax to offer a U.S.-developed alternative to foreign-sourced vaccines amid rising global biosecurity threats and constrained supply.
Advanced Manufacturing: Scaling MVA for Global Reach
GeoVax is advancing continuous cell line manufacturing for MVA-based vaccines, offering a path to scalable, cost-effective production - including localized manufacturing for low- and middle-income countries. This innovation addresses critical gaps in vaccine self-sufficiency and supply resilience.
Outlook for 2025
Despite the PNG award termination, GeoVax anticipates a milestone-rich 2025 across its portfolio. The Company will continue to engage with government and industry partners, pursue clinical trial completions, and drive innovation through expanded AI integration to optimize development, trial operations, and manufacturing efficiency.
'Our scientific foundation is strong and our strategy is clear,' added Dodd. 'GeoVax remains committed to delivering transformative solutions for unmet medical needs in infectious disease and cancer. We're advancing with purpose and fully prepared to deliver on the promise of our development program.'
For further details on GeoVax's programs and progress, visit www.geovax.com.
About GeoVax
GeoVax Labs, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing novel vaccines against infectious diseases and therapies for solid tumor cancers. The Company's lead clinical program is GEO-CM04S1, a next-generation COVID-19 vaccine currently in three Phase 2 clinical trials, being evaluated as (1) a primary vaccine for immunocompromised patients such as those suffering from hematologic cancers and other patient populations for whom the current authorized COVID-19 vaccines are insufficient, (2) a booster vaccine in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and (3) a more robust, durable COVID-19 booster among healthy patients who previously received the mRNA vaccines. In oncology the lead clinical program is evaluating a novel oncolytic solid tumor gene-directed therapy, Gedeptin(R), having recently completed a multicenter Phase 1/2 clinical trial for advanced head and neck cancers. The Company is also developing GEO-MVA, a vaccine targeting Mpox and smallpox. GeoVax has a strong IP portfolio in support of its technologies and product candidates, holding worldwide rights for its technologies and products. For more information about the current status of our clinical trials and other updates, visit our website: www.geovax.com.
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains forward-looking statements regarding GeoVax's business plans. The words 'believe,' 'look forward to,' 'may,' 'estimate,' 'continue,' 'anticipate,' 'intend,' 'should,' 'plan,' 'could,' 'target,' 'potential,' 'is likely,' 'will,' 'expect' and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. Actual results may differ materially from those included in these statements due to a variety of factors, including whether: GeoVax is able to obtain acceptable results from ongoing or future clinical trials of its investigational products, GeoVax's immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines can provoke the desired responses, and those products or vaccines can be used effectively, GeoVax's viral vector technology adequately amplifies immune responses to cancer antigens, GeoVax can develop and manufacture its immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines with the desired characteristics in a timely manner, GeoVax's immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines will be safe for human use, GeoVax's vaccines will effectively prevent targeted infections in humans, GeoVax's immuno-oncology products and preventative vaccines will receive regulatory approvals necessary to be licensed and marketed, GeoVax raises required capital to complete development, there is development of competitive products that may be more effective or easier to use than GeoVax's products, GeoVax will be able to enter into favorable manufacturing and distribution agreements, and other factors, over which GeoVax has no control.
Further information on our risk factors is contained in our periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K that we have filed and will file with the SEC. Any forward-looking statement made by us herein speaks only as of the date on which it is made. Factors or events that could cause our actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of them. We undertake no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by law.
Company Contact:
[email protected]
678-384-7220
Investor Relations Contact:
[email protected]
212-698-8696
View the original release on www.newmediawire.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
17 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Costco sees one huge area for sales growth, happier members
Costco has never been a leader in much other than offering members low prices. The company only innovates when it has to. During the Covid pandemic, for example, it took charge of its own shipping containers. That was a move made out of need, but it proved the company can be agile when possible. Related: Bankrupt beauty brand to return after $1 billion collapse It has also done really well with Costco Logistics, a company it created because it did not like any of the other options it had for making larger deliveries. "It's about 20% to 25% of our total deliveries for Costco Logistics, but it is about 80% to 85% of our big and bulky," CEO Ron Vachris said during Costco's third-quarter earnings call. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The warehouse club has let its managers make decisions for use to use that resource. "We make our buyers make decisions of what to put through that network and what not to put through it. And so, they look for the best cost delivery source. And so, we know that big and bulky patio furniture, television, safe, those kind of things, all but the super specialty stuff we run through Costco Logistics. So, a big chunk of that business is going through the network of big and bulky," he added. Delivery, however, may not be the biggest opportunity Costco (COST) has. Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images For years, Costco had a website, but did not even sell anything online. That has changed and the chain not only sells some of what it offers in its warehouses, but also deals from third-party sellers. The warehouse club also has an app, and CFO Gary Millerchip thinks that the company has barely scratched the surface of the potential there. He was asked about it during the call. "And are there any members that haven't used your digital yet in some way, shape or form, or is it still only half the people that really use it?" asked Greg Melich. Millerchip was enthusiastic in his response. "Yeah. It's over half has downloaded the app for sure, but there's still plenty of opportunity for growth in our mind. We still see it as an area where we'd expect to outpace our overall growth," he added. More on travel: US government warns of dating app use in popular cruise portsCarnival Cruise Line rep sounds alarm on growing YouTube problemWhat the CDC's Dengue Fever warning means for Caribbean travel It's not just about getting members to use the app, but also making it better. "And as we continue to improve the member experience with enhancements every quarter, Greg around, whether it's the inventory available on the app or improving the search functionality, improving the way in which we communicate with members, as I talked about earlier on the call, we believe all of those things are going to drive more digital engagement," he added. Millerchip believes that the Costco app may also have in-store uses as well. "We think tied to even some of the comments that Ron was making about speed of checkout, where members use their digital wallet and have their payment card integrated within the wallet, it significantly increases the speed of checkout through the check lane in the warehouse as well," he said. The CFO also made it clear that the app might be useful in ways he's not even considered yet. "So, we still think there's plenty of opportunity to keep driving higher penetration of digital engagement with our members and we think it's got a runway to continue to grow in the future," he added. Related: TSA shares travel warning for Costco members Vachris made more comments on digital and the app later in the call. "We found that digital really enhances the speed of checkout. And so, we are really working hard on the digital membership card usage as well. We've also engaged in some "Scan & Go done by Costco" kind of tests that we're doing out there that have been extremely successful of moving people through the lines and expediting the transactions," he said. "We've seen some very, very early results have been very positive and great adoption from our members seeing that as well." The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Veteran investor makes surprising Fed rate call after jobs report
Veteran investor makes surprising Fed rate call after jobs report originally appeared on TheStreet. Okay, Jerome Powell, now it's your turn. President Donald Trump on June 6 took a break from bashing Elon Musk to vent his spleen — again — at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. 💵💰Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter 💰 Trump took to his social media platform to call on Powell to slash interest rates by a full percentage point. ''Too Late' at the Fed is a disaster!" Trump said on Truth Social. "Europe has had 10 rate cuts, we have had none. Despite him, our Country is doing great. Go for a full point, Rocket Fuel!" Trump made his demand even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that U.S. hiring in May rose more than predicted. Nonfarm payrolls rose 139,000 for the month, exceeding estimates for 125,000. The last time the central bank made a single rate cut of a full percentage point was in March 2020 to address economic fallout from the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Fed cut rates by one full point in total during President Joe Biden's final year in office. "If 'Too Late' at the Fed would CUT, we would greatly reduce interest rates, long and short, on debt that is coming due," Trump said, using the two-word name he calls Powell. "Biden went mostly short term." More Economic Analysis: Hedge-fund manager sees U.S. becoming Greece A critical industry is slamming the economy Reports may show whether the economy is toughing out the tariffs "There is virtually no inflation (anymore), but if it should come back, RAISE 'RATE' TO COUNTER. Very Simple!!! He is costing our Country a fortune. Borrowing costs should be MUCH LOWER!!!" It seems like only yesterday when the president was giving Musk — Tesla's () CEO and a big-time Trump backer — all kinds of misery after the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency decried Trump's "big beautiful bill" of tax breaks and spending cuts as pork-laden and a "disgusting abomination." Actually, it was yesterday, come to think of it, when Trump suggested that an easy way to save "Billions and Billions of Dollars" was to terminate all of Musk's government contracts and subsidies. Tesla and Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, both benefit from a a number of government programs. Musk, who took credit for getting Trump elected, also decided it would be a good idea to bring up Jeffrey Epstein's name while Tesla shares nosedived. TheStreet Pro's Peter Tchir says that if you're looking for excitement, this is the social-media donnybrook to watch. Unlike the payroll data. The veteran investor said in a recent TheStreet Pro column that the report looked decent on the surface but "there are a lot of things to pick on." "The prior two months were revised down by 95,000," he said. "That negates much of this month's reported gain in the Establishment Survey." The Establishment Survey, also known as the Current Employment Statistics survey, provides monthly data on employment, hours and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls. "The Household Survey, used for the unemployment rate, lost over 600,000 jobs," Tchir said. "The unemployment rate remained unchanged only because labor-force participation dropped by a similar amount."The birth/death model, which estimates the number of jobs created by new businesses and lost from defunct businesses, added 199,000 jobs, he added. "With low survey response rates, etc., there are a lot of things to question about the quality of the data (the seemingly endless downward revisions validate that 'questioning'), but this number is back to 'bothering' me,'" Tchir said. Without this calculated number, he explained, "we would have lost jobs in the Establishment Survey "kind of like the Household Survey indicated." "Sure, it is possible that in a time of peak uncertainty, lots of new businesses were formed, but the number seems high," Tchir said. "It is the second month in a row when there is a lot of uncertainty, where birth/death adjustment was bigger than the number itself. That is why I would weigh this into being more dovish, if I was at the Fed." Foul weather might have also had a negative impact on the data. "If the Fed was looking to cut rates, it could probably come up with a story around this data to let it do so," Tchir said. "Since the Fed doesn't seem to be looking to cut rates, though, there is enough of a narrative in this report to keep it on hold." "After this data, I remain in the three-to-four-cuts-this-year camp, starting in July."Veteran investor makes surprising Fed rate call after jobs report first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 6, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
