Biotech Values

[willyw]

I'm willing to play the devils advocate here. : )
Maybe this isn't a reply; more like an editorial. Sorry.

Dew, although I am answering your post, it is really directed generally towards some of the other comments I have read recently, instead of a series of semi-redundant replies to individual posts.

I admit I have been frustrated that the 2a trial actions were not more far reaching, that there was too long of a period between phase 2a and 2b.

Having said that.... I do not see justification that things are not going as planned; dosing questions (should that not have been a phase 2a examination?), not having a PI failure cohort, questions about RBV in trials, trial duration, etc.

All I am saying is that I feel there may be too much inference occurring. No one really knows. It is fair to say that we are in a information vacuum for the moment, and it is easy to assume the worse in those moments.

The submission process for AASLD is happening right now and in a mere 6 weeks we may have more data on the 2nd generation drugs. Myself, since they are doing trials, I think it shows *some* optimism about the combo. I will grant you, there isn't enough data to merit optimism or certainty. It's faith based investing at this point.: ) Not something I like, but I think there is ample opportunity for a pleasant surprise.

In terms of ENTA share price, I am hoping/expecting it is at minimum fairly priced now, or under priced. I see more potential for the share price going up, than down. AASLD is in about 6 weeks. I've waited this long. I'll wait a bit longer before making my decision.

ENTA opt in or opt out?
For me I would need to totally understand the market in the next 2-4 months, then the market and players for the next 2-4 years, and where the 2nd generation combo would fit into that hypothesized scheme (that is a pretty difficult hypothesis to get right)
I would also need to understand how the 2nd generation drugs played individually, but far moreso how they interact. I don't think that the drugs have been dosed together for any length of time, and it is questionable if Abbvie or ENTA has seen viral kinetics of the drugs co-dosed together for safety or efficacy. A PCR takes about a week. How much data does Abbvie/ENTA even have at this point?

I would also need to have a good understanding of what the FDA will require of Abbvie/ENTA. I'm uncertain any of us know that.

I don't have any knowledge of the contractual agreements between Abbvie or ENTA. I usually see however, that these companies exist to make money in their market place. They do it by cooperation and excelling in partnerships. I see greater possibility for that occurring than Abbvie taking advantage of ENTA in contractual matters. We don't even know the royalty percentage structure for 450, let alone what 493 would garner.

So I think I will just wait until there is actual evidence. I think the evidence is mighty thin at this point, to be overly optimistic or pessimistic. Guarded makes sense though. : )

====
Just to be a bit more argumentative though; what if Gilead had experimented with RBV or dosing strengths or treatment durations in genotype 2 or 3?

Oh wait; they have and they are currently doing so, and they probably will continue to do so in optimizing efficacy/safety/duration in drug treatments.
That is what trials are there for.
And that's why they call them trials. : )

This is offered up as friendly debate, and in the spirit that such debate makes us all a little smarter when we get views which may contrast ours. In that regard, thank you all for providing me that. : )

~W