Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Biotech/Healthcare Companies entering and exiting the Russell 3000 index per June 29th, 2010.
Source: http://www.russell.com/indexes/membership/Reconstitution/Reconstitution_changes.aspx
Add ACCRETIVE HEALTH INC AH United States Health Care
Add ALCON INC ACL United States Health Care
Add ALEXZA PHARMACEUTICALS ALXA United States Health Care
Add ALIMERA SCIENCES INC ALIM United States Health Care
Add ANTARES PHARMA INC AIS United States Health Care
Add ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS ANTH United States Health Care
Add AOXING PHARMACEUTICAL CO AXN United States Health Care
Add ARTHROCARE CORP ARTC United States Health Care
Add ASPENBIO PHARMA INC APPY United States Health Care
Add AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS INC AVEO United States Health Care
Add BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS BPAX United States Health Care
Add BIOTIME INC BTIM United States Health Care
Add CALIPER LIFE SCIENCES CALP United States Health Care
Add CERUS CORP CERS United States Health Care
Add CODEXIS INC CDXS United States Health Care
Add COMBINATORX INC CRXX United States Health Care
Add CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS INC CORT United States Health Care
Add COVIDIEN PLC COV United States Health Care
Add CYTRX CORP CYTR United States Health Care
Add DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES DVAX United States Health Care
Add EURAND N V EURX United States Health Care
Add EXACT SCIENCES CORP EXAS United States Health Care
Add FIVE STAR QUALITY CARE FVE United States Health Care
Add HEALTHTRONICS INC HTRN United States Health Care
Add INHIBITEX INC INHX United States Health Care
Add INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS INO United States Health Care
Add JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS INC JAZZ United States Health Care
Add KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS KERX United States Health Care
Add NEOSTEM INC NBS United States Health Care
Add NEURALSTEM INC CUR United States Health Care
Add PEREGRINE PHARMA INC PPHM United States Health Care
Add PHARMACYCLICS INC PCYC United States Health Care
Add PROSPECT MEDICAL HLDGS PZZ United States Health Care
Add PURE BIOSCIENCE PURE United States Health Care
Add RURAL/METRO CORP RURL United States Health Care
Add SENORX INC SENO United States Health Care
Add SOLTA MEDICAL INC SLTM United States Health Care
Add SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS SOMX United States Health Care
Add STAAR SURGICAL CO STAA United States Health Care
Add SXC HEALTH SOLUTIONS SXCI United States Health Care
Add SYNERON MEDICAL LTD ELOS United States Health Care
Add TARGACEPT INC TRGT United States Health Care
Add TRANSCEPT PHARM INC TSPT United States Health Care
Add UNILIFE CORP NEW UNIS United States Health Care
Add WARNER CHILCOTT PLC WCRX United States Health Care
Add ZIOPHARM ONCOLOGY INC ZIOP United States Health Care
Delete ADOLOR CORP ADLR United States Health Care
Delete AMERICAN CARESOURCE HLDG ANCI United States Health Care
Delete AMERICAN ORIENTAL BIOENG AOB United States Health Care
Delete AMICUS THERAPEUTICS INC FOLD United States Health Care
Delete ARYX THERAPEUTICS INC ARYX United States Health Care
Delete BIODELIVERY SCIENCES BDSI United States Health Care
Delete BOVIE MEDICAL CORP BVX United States Health Care
Delete CARDIAC SCIENCE CORP CSCX United States Health Care
Delete CARDIOVASCULAR SYS INC CSII United States Health Care
Delete CARDIUM THERAPEUTICS INC CXM United States Health Care
Delete CELL THERAPEUTICS INC CTIC United States Health Care
Delete CHINA SKY ONE MED INC CSKI United States Health Care
Delete DISCOVERY LABORATORIES DSCO United States Health Care
Delete ENTEROMEDICS INC ETRM United States Health Care
Delete GTX INC GTXI United States Health Care
Delete HARVARD BIOSCIENCE INC HBIO United States Health Care
Delete HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA INC HEB United States Health Care
Delete IDERA PHARMACEUTICALS IDRA United States Health Care
Delete INSMED INC INSM United States Health Care
Delete ISTA PHARMACEUTICALS INC ISTA United States Health Care
Delete JAVELIN PHARMACEUTICALS JAV United States Health Care
Delete K V PHARMACEUTICAL CO KV.A United States Health Care
Delete MATRIXX INITIATIVES INC MTXX United States Health Care
Delete MOLECULAR INSIGHT PHARMA MIPI United States Health Care
Delete MYRIAD PHARMA INC MYRX United States Health Care
Delete NIGHTHAWK RADIOLOGY HLDG NHWK United States Health Care
Delete NOVAMED INC NOVAD United States Health Care
Delete ONCOGENEX PHARMAS INC OGXI United States Health Care
Delete OXIGENE INC OXGN United States Health Care
Delete PONIARD PHARMA INC PARD United States Health Care
Delete PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS PLX United States Health Care
Delete RADNET INC RDNT United States Health Care
Delete REPLIGEN CORP RGEN United States Health Care
Delete REPROS THERAPEUTICS INC RPRX United States Health Care
Delete ROCKWELL MEDICAL TECH RMTI United States Health Care
Delete TRANS1 INC TSON United States Health Care
Delete UTAH MED PRODS INC UTMD United States Health Care
Take heed when buying/selling that this process is underway.
BRAF mutation confirmed as a strong target for cancer drugs
June 10, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- Research has added to the evidence that a genetic mutation found in over 60 per cent of malignant melanomas is an important target for drugs to treat the disease.
A mutation in the gene BRAF is known to be present in over 60 per cent of malignant melanomas, a type of skin cancer that can spread rapidly and is difficult to treat.
To date, several drugs that target this mutation have shown promise in clinical trials in people with melanoma. However, researchers weren't sure whether this effectiveness was a result of the drugs blocking the activity of BRAF, as designed, or from some other effect of the drugs.
Doubts around the effectiveness of BRAF inhibitors have also been raised by the failure of a drug called sorafenib to improve the survival of people with melanoma in late-stage clinical testing last year.
Now, in research published in the journal 'Science Translational Medicine', Professor Richard Marais and colleagues at the Institute of Cancer Research have shown how these drugs work, confirming that BRAF is still a valid target for melanoma drugs.
The researchers constructed models using drug-resistant forms of the protein. They then tested whether the drugs retained their anti-cancer activity on tumour cells with mutated forms of the BRAF protein.
They found that sorafenib does not work in melanoma because it does not target the mutated form of BRAF in tumours. A second-generation drug called PLX4720 works in melanoma because it does target damaged BRAF.
"We have absolutely confirmed that BRAF is an important drug target for malignant melanoma, and that the clinical benefit from these second-generation drugs is due to their ability to target the damaged BRAF protein," says Professor Marais.
"It is crucial that we understand the mechanism behind these drugs' effects to ensure they are only given to patients with the specific genetic defects - in this case, a mutated BRAF gene - that will allow them to benefit. This knowledge may also help us combat resistance and develop new-generation drugs."
Drugs that target BRAF may also be important in treating other tumours in which BRAF mutations are common. These include thyroid cancer (in which BRAF is mutated in 45 per cent of cases), ovarian cancer (10 per cent) and colorectal cancers (13 per cent).
More information: Whittaker S et al. Gatekeeper mutations mediate resistance to BRAF targeted therapies. Sci Transl Med 2010.
Provided by Wellcome Trust
Ah, it seems that we're in conspiracy mode this weekend. :-| .
concerning MNTA options: it's also possible to hedge. Limits profits, but also limits losses to an personally acceptable level.
As EU Citizen I can say that every Euro country contributes to this bailout at the rate of a fixed price per citizen. Germany just has the most citizens and thus foots the largest bill.
Greece will be under close supervision by the other EU countries (incl. the PIS countries) and the IMF.
In Europe Celution therapy is already actively used in plastic surgery for breast augmentation:
See http://www.brustvergroesserung-stammzellen.de/brustvergroesserung-stammzellen-faq.html
Translated with Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brustvergroesserung-stammzellen.de%2Fbrustvergroesserung-stammzellen-faq.html&sl=de&tl=en
(perhaps slightly NSFW in the USA).
Situation at PARD was different than CYTX. See:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/10666116/1/poniard-drug-safe-less-effective-biobuzz.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
Last November, however, picoplatin failed a phase III study in small cell lung cancer that was seen as the fastest and best way for the drug to reach the market. Poniard's stock price plunged on the negative results.
In short: the drop in february was on the second-best indication.
Concerning the situation at CYTX however in my opinion the following signs look good:
The Dutch researcher apparently barely could contain his enthusiasm for the CYTX stem cell harvest method (Celution) and the results or else it would not have been presented in a PR of Erasmus MC. The Erasmus MC is world renowned for it's advanced studies on disease (e.g. it's part of a worldwide CDC network).
Also be advised that the presentations next friday will be given premarket since these will end before 15:30 CEST (=09:30 EDT). Usually data presented premarket is a good sign while data muffled away on e.g. a sunday is bad news.
Hi Kei,
You actually made me laugh outloud at the computer (happens seldom) for the irony in your joke.
Thanks and have a nice sunday.
Yes, you were closer, but underestimated, while Ocyan overestimated.
Given the logscale of the hazard ratio both estimates were still quite off the mark.
However both of you were waaayyy better than the people of Brean Murray who really fscked up their statistics:
http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Brean+Murray+Issues+Last+2+Cents+On+Dendreons+%28DNDN%29+PROVENGE+-+%22It+Will+Fail%22/4555942.html
rkrw wrote:
Royalty rate starts at only 5%, the patents will probably be challenged within a few months and one of the components is generic. So my expectation would be any jump is sold off.
Sorry to have to correct you: 5% was the old royalty rate, the deal was renegotiated in 2007 and now for the USA the royalty rate for Vimovo is in the order of 10-12,5% (low teens) over the board.
Patents probably be challenged? That's an assumption.
One of the components generic? Irrelevant since it's about the effectiveness vs. the adverse events and with the POZN drug the balance between these two seems to be quite a lot better than with the generic alone.
disclosure: sold POZN before the decision.
Quick question: under which conditions are legitimate claims concerning asking for reimbursement for treatment of breast cancer fraudulent?
If people have paid their premiums while being truthful in their info to the insurer and the insurance company has accepted these premiums both parties are bound to the deal, n'est-ce pas?
Women have breast cancer or they do not. If they have, why do a fraudster investigation at that point if these women in question would have paid their premiums?
It cannot be so that insurance companies happily receive the paid premiums and when they have to pay reimbursements start shouting fraud to people.
Again: why does mrs. Sebelius utter these claims if there is no ground? That she is playing to the audience is an explanation which is not rebutting the actual statements by mrs. Sebelius since basically every statement by a politician is playing to some or the other audience. It's like saying that the Earth is moving round the Sun.
Assuming that Sebelius doesn't want to be sued for slander, there is probably some merit to Sebelius' accusations. What is a little surprising to me is the defensive tone on this forum re. health insurers. And concerning the example of the lady in business who got her insurance ripped: why is it apparently necessary to screen people for fraud only AFTER they get ill?
And the actual lectures of May 7th:
(13.30 – 14.30)
LATE BREAKING CLINICAL TRIALS IN STEM CELL THERAPY
Chairs
Bernard Gersh (Rochester, USA)
Philippe Menasché (Paris, France)
Discussants
Felipe Prosper (Pamplona, Spain)
Alberto San Román (Valladolid, Spain)
Andreas Zeiher (Frankfurt, Germany)
Doris Taylor (Minneapolis, USA)
Manuel Galiñanes (Leicester, UK)
Noel Caplice (Cork, Ireland)
José Mª Lasso (Madrid, Spain)
(13.30 – 13.45) First US study to assess the feasibility & safety of endocardial delivery allogenic mesenchymal cells in subjects with heart failure
Nabil Dib (San Diego, USA)
(13.45 – 14.00) Freshly adipose-derived stem cells in chronic ischaemia.
The PRECISE Trial
Emerson Perin (Houston, USA)
Francisco Fernández-Aviles (Madrid, Spain)
(14.00 – 14.15) Freshly adipose-derived stem cells in acute myocardial infarction.
The APOLLO Trial
Eric Duckers (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)
(14.15 – 14.30) Panel discussion
More info about the congress where Cytori will present data here:
http://www.cardiovascularcelltherapy.com/contents/PreliminaryProgram.pdf
Looking at the speaker line up: e.g. Magdi Yacoub (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdi_Yacoub), etc. this is quite a congress.
19-1 vote against approval.
ACUR panel voted 19-1 against approval. This does not bode well for their total pipeline since Niacin, which was the no way José component afas the panel was concerned, is rather prevalent as a productcomponent in their pipeline...
Just took a quick peek at the PIX301 results: difference between arms with p < 0.05. Meh.
Incomplete enrollment. More meh.
The trial was conducted at max. 130 sites with an enrollment of 140 patients. That's on the average one! patient per site. Even more meh. It's thus not possible to seek out the variances in treatment between the sites. Since the variability of results within one site cannot be determined. Meh, meh.
Adverse events: The most common grade 3, 4 adverse event observed on the pixantrone arm was neutropenia in 41.2% of patients versus 19.4% on the comparator arm. However, the incidence of grade 3, 4 febrile neutropenia was only 7.4% versus 3.0% in the comparator arm. In other words: results are perhaps better, but adverse effects are more than doubled compared to the comparator drug.
Not good at all.
Conclusion: EU rapporteurs supportive of submission? Looks like selective listening on the part of CTIC.
Abraxis BioScience Says Abraxane Plus Gemcitabine Increases Survival In Advanced Pancreatic Cancer In Phase I/II Study
4/18/2010 2:30 PM ET
(RTTNews) - Abraxis BioScience Inc. (ABII: News ) reported that nab-paclitaxel or Abraxane for Injectable Suspension given in combination with gemcitabine, demonstrated increased survival of the first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
The overall survival findings from a phase I/II study of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in 44 patients also showed that the combination resulted in a confirmed overall response rate in 50% of patients treated, and a disease control rate of 68%. In the overall study, three patients achieved a complete response.
The combination of nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine is now the treatment arm of a randomized phase 3 clinical trial that is currently enrolling patients.
Not me: I'm cautious if ACUR will attain the coveted “deter common methods of misuse and abuse” label. If they don't, Acurox is dead in the water, since it's basically a generic drug with components added to deter abuse.
Also: how to rate abuse deterrence with actual abusers in a clinical setting?
It could still be that an actual abuser will be vomiting all over the place after taking Acurox but if the high would be worth it in the eyes of the abuser they would probably still take it.
Clinical trials are usually performed with sane patients...
For those who are curious: next tuesday, the 20th, the FDA site will have the presentation materials of Acura and the FDA available so an opinion can be formed on the possible outcome of the hearing. Be aware that the FDA will play the role of devil's advocate here...
For DD info: from the 2008 10-K
AstraZeneca AB (AstraZeneca)
In August 2006, we entered into a collaboration and license agreement dated as of August 1, 2006 and effective September 7, 2006 with AstraZeneca, a Swedish corporation, regarding the development and commercialization of proprietary fixed dose combinations of the PPI esomeprazole magnesium with the NSAID naproxen, in a single tablet for the management of pain and inflammation associated with conditions such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are at risk for developing NSAID associated gastric ulcers. Under the terms of the agreement, we granted to AstraZeneca an exclusive, fee-bearing license, in all countries of the world except Japan, under our patents and know-how relating to combinations of gastroprotective agents and NSAIDs (other than aspirin and its derivatives). AstraZeneca may, at no additional cost, elect to include Japan in the licensed territory within two years after the effective date of the agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, we received an upfront license fee of $40.0 million from AstraZeneca following termination of the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino notification program.
In September 2007, we agreed with AstraZeneca to amend our collaboration and license agreement effective as of September 6, 2007. Under the terms of the amendment, AstraZeneca has agreed to pay us up to $345 million, in the aggregate, in milestone payments upon the achievement of certain development, regulatory and sales events. We received in September 2007, a $10.0 million payment upon execution of the Amendment and a $20.0 million payment in recognition of the achievement of successful proof of concept. An additional $55 million will be paid upon achievement of certain development and regulatory milestones, and $260.0 million will be paid as sales performance milestones if certain aggregate sales thresholds are achieved. Under the original agreement, we were to have received development and regulatory milestones totaling $160.0 million, of which $20.0 million was to be paid upon the successful completion of the proof of concept studies, and sales performance milestones totaling $175.0 million.
In addition, the amendment revised the royalty rates we are to have received under the original agreement. Under the original agreement, we were to receive a royalty based on annual net sales by AstraZeneca, its affiliates or sublicensees during the royalty term. The royalty rate varied based on the level of annual net sales of products made by AstraZeneca, its affiliates and sublicensees, ranging from the mid-single digits to the mid-teens. Under the Amendment, we will now receive a flat, low double digit royalty rate during the royalty term on annual net sales of products made by AstraZeneca, its affiliates and sublicensees, in the United States and royalties ranging from the mid-single digits to the high-teens on annual net sales of products made by AstraZeneca, its affiliates and sublicensees outside of the United States. The amendment also revises the rate of reduction to the royalty rate based upon loss of market share due to generic competition inside and outside of the United States to account for the new royalty structure.
Our right to receive royalties from AstraZeneca for the sale of such products expires on a country-by-country basis upon the later of (a) expiration of the last-to-expire of certain patent rights relating to such products in that country, and (b) ten years after the first commercial sale of such products in such country.
We retain responsibility for the development and filing of the New Drug Application (NDA) for the product in the U.S. AstraZeneca is responsible for all development activities outside the U.S., as well as for all manufacturing, marketing, sales and distribution activities worldwide. We have agreed to bear all expenses related to certain specified U.S. development activities. All other development expenses, including all manufacturing-related expenses, will be paid by AstraZeneca. The agreement established joint committees with representation of both us and AstraZeneca to manage the development and commercialization of the product. The committees operate by consensus, but if consensus cannot be reached, we generally will have the deciding vote with respect to development activities required for marketing approval of the product in the U.S. and AstraZeneca generally will have the deciding vote with respect to any other matters.
The agreement, unless earlier terminated, will expire upon the payment of all applicable royalties for the products commercialized under the agreement. Either party has the right to terminate the agreement by notice in writing to the other party upon or after any material breach of the agreement by the other party, if the other party has not cured the breach within 90 days after written notice to cure has been given, with certain exceptions. The parties also can terminate the agreement for cause under certain defined conditions. In addition, AstraZeneca can terminate the agreement at will, for any reason or no reason, in its entirety or with respect to countries outside the U.S., upon 90 days’ notice. If terminated at will, AstraZeneca will owe us a specified termination payment or, if termination occurs after the product is launched, AstraZeneca may, at its option, under and subject to the satisfaction of conditions specified in the agreement, elect to transfer the product and all rights to us.
I won't buy POZN at this price since that would be averaging up a lot for me and I hate that. But it's the best price in weeks: expiration, GS accused of fraud and some negative postings. Next week will be interesting.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=POZN
Have a look at the estimates from Yahoo (also for the next quarters). Btw. the server of mysmartrend.com is soooo reliable that it's out of the air.
The estimates from mysmartrend.com are laughable IMHO.
Looks like a bunch of amateur shorters who now start to realize that they have to cover.
Got out of AEZS this morning with >20% profit. Took with that money an initial position in SPPI.
Thanks $heff and CCCPMD666 (Cannot yet post on $heffs board: due to the still missing logo next to my alias. That will be fixed shortly).
Interesting, apparently some people took a hint from the RNN book and applied it to AVNR. Those that didn't read the PB and sold on the bottom will regret it IMHO.
Considering OREX: a lot of insider sales are taking place compared to VVUS and ARNA.
Hi,
Just new to this board:
Panel is for Acurox.
WJL,
Again I have to disagree partially. It's not the manufacturing, it's the patents which are owned by INSM and define how to produce iPlex + the knowledge of the INSM research staff.
Takeover is in my opinion if medical trials are successful a certainty (that was established here long ago before the results of the juridical trial came in). All that matters is the price and the takeover partner (I would place my bets on DNA).
E.
The glass is half-empty or half-full. Why wouldn't CEPH? It's all down to money and patents. CEPH has the ALS patents (at least in Europe). There will be quite an interesting mix of interests if ALS would pan out. INSM has just to wait it out. Does DNA want to partner then half of proceeds go to INSM + recovery of half of development costs.
Again: if the absolute amount of money to be made is large enough which partner doesn't really matter.
E.
The Opt-in period in my understanding is the 90-day period after phase III enabling data. Therefore ALS is not really an issue for INSM since it would be DNA's problem to deal with CEPH if they choose to opt in on ALS. Since INSM will not market products (that's done by DNA or TRCA) they won't be liable from CEPH patent infringement. DNA or TRCA will have to get an agreement with CEPH on this one if they choose to opt-in on ALS (IF ALS pans out of course). If DNA and TRCA choose not to opt-in on ALS and ALS works CEPH will be in.
Sincerely, E.
wjl,
It all depends on the size of the pie.
E.
Slacker,
If you read the TRCA press release they're staying with Lonza, but moving production to another factory.
The wounds on both sides need more time to heal I suspect.
E.
Correction: apparently only Omicron sold 49K shares to Rockmore Investments. Omicron still has the equivalent of 740K shares left.
E.
Two new SEC filings:
Prospectus for 8.4MM shares.
http://www.insmed.com/updates/secondary.asp?title=SEC%20Filings§ion=ir
and distribution over major shareholders.
Sincerely, E.
Rod,
Thx for the clarification. Since Italy has abt. 2000 new ALS patients each year to a population of abt. 60MM, only within the EU a patient population of abt. 14000 could be candidates for IPlex. Lets be cautious and say that Iplex helps for 20% of ALS cases in the EU. That represents 2800 patients. Let's say that raw income (based upon earlier assumptions) is $120K/patient/year and that CEPH takes 1/3rd.
Thus 80K/patient/year times 2800 patients, would mean
Yearly income for at least five years of $224MM.
Given the usual discounts for Biotech and that (fully diluted) INSM will have 150MM shares, this would bring a stock price of $5-$7.50/share. If the numbers will be better one way or the other (#patients and/or CEPH fee), stock prices will, on this indication alone, rise above $10.
This is why I'm invested in INSM for the long term.
Btw. I wouldn't be surprised if INSM sells the Diabetes indication to DNA. (DNA has first pick on non-Orphan indications).
Sincerely, E.
Rod,
Thanks a lot for sharing this info indeed.
That at least a placebo effect seems to be there on such a short notice is very encouraging.
If I have to bet INSM will have to reach a deal with Cephalon concerning the ALS indication. Having learnt the hard way from the last patent scuffle, INSM will quite probably do it right this time, and I would be surprised if CEPH would act like DNA did, since iPlex would be the only player in town for ALS.
Sincerely, E.
This is the promise. The love will come when the data is good.
E.
EUR.350,- per day, would mean abt. $166K/year/patient ($/EUR = 1.35)
EUR.450,- per day, would mean abt. $213K/year/patient.
Lets see: 50 patients would mean $8.3MM-$10.65MM/year.
Given the diminished burnrate this could become quite interesting.
Sincerely, E.
Rhetorical question: will Increlex help against ALS? If answer is NO then back to iPlex. Concerning expanded access in other countries than Italy: if the results in Italy will be positive there is no way that TRCA/DNA are able to stop iPlex from being delivered elsewhere or else they'll get a class action suit and the press over them like there's no tomorrow, since an ALS diagnosis is at this moment in time effectively a death sentence.
E.
Jellybean,
Firstly. there will be an oversight committee which will primarily be guided by DNA. I'm quite sure that DNA will parachute someone into INSM if Attie's clinical research pans out, but there would be an operational or CEO problem.
Let's be real: INSM has become overnight a research company with licences from DNA (at a very high price).
Concerning Attie: he's a committed researcher who has invested years of his life in making iPlex happen. I would sincerely doubt that he'll leave the iPlex proposition behind as long as there is life in future indications (and there certainly must be given the supporting letters of the Dr.'s Moxley, Camacho-Hubner, et al.).
Sincerely, E.
Bob,
My question was rhetorical. I do not think that lawsuits are the answer.
E.