<<<Do you accept the foul play hypothesis?
I do not see a third alternative (something other than a leak or foul play) to explain why multiple industry insiders have strongly felt views that VRTX will not be able to proceed directly to phase-3.>>>
This is my third post for the day, which is it under the terms of being a new member so it will have to do today.
I know the people on Wall Street, I know the people who are top executives, etc. They are colleagues. I also have some long experience reading press releases and writing carefully worded statements. And I have wrote for a very popular stock newsletter, along with a few newspapers. So I know how reporters get their stories, how columnist may get their ideas, etc., especially lazy ones (hey, I'm human). Particularly when one has to turn out stories every day or every week. I also know how industry PR works and have seen it implemented in the past.
These "multiple industry insiders" and their strongly felt views? Please. I think Wachovia and the FT are using the same sources. And if not the only sources I'm aware of are Wachovia, with whomever they are using, and the FT. Reminds me of the insider sources that Morgan Stanley stated from Apple who said they were going to dump Akamai as the Internet content accelerator. The brokerage ended up having to deny the story ever came from them the market took it as if it was the honest truth. The sources from the FT article certainly have little more to offer than the informed man on the street. One source is an unnamed executive who works at a biotech company that on their web-site has no HCV products in the pipeline. The second is another unnamed industry executive, and the third is an internist at Wake Forest who hopes the FDA moves very cautiously.
I may as well have asked my surgeon who kept me 4 hours in his office today and told me physical therapy and no knee surgery necessary today. Heck, we talked in-depth about whether or not his kid should be put on ritalin. Hey, I litigated the issue once, so I must be an expert. And I will tell you, a press story would certainly refer to me as an industry expert on the topic. It is the way most press stories get done. And it is certainly the way that PR and propoganda pieces are put together.
So yes, this article is full of holes. It is a practical boceprevir love fest without coming out into your face and saying it. Not a single positive thing is stated about telaprevir, not a single negative thing is stated about boceprevir. Schering gets in its plug that 48 weeks is just as good as 24 weeks and that boceprevir, who has yet to submit a single peer reviewed data item will certainly beat telaprevir to market. It is a done deal by the headline.
Now, I can see how some may claim that telaprevir needs to rethink its dosing given the rather high number of AEs and how that might create some legitimate FUD. But this story is clearly a PR piece.
Shortly before Tysabri was put back on the market there were similar pieces put out by Teva, one declaring that Tysabri is the equivalent of AIDS, as an example. I remember with Rambus, its competitors literally bought and paid for the industry press leader who put out nothing but constant negative RDRAM spin for RMBS. It later came out that the premier industry publication was bought and paid for by Rambus's competitors. I won't tell you how many industry executives went to jail for colluding against Rambus.
So it should not be surprising to see such a thing.
So yes, I think this is a hit piece. Maybe a bit strong, more like a propoganda piece.
This said, there still is a lot of tension regarding the start of phase III for telaprevir and I'm feeling the pressure on that one as well. I just don't think that there is much in this article that legitimately produces any material or insider information in regard to that decision.
Tinker