PROTALIX BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. (PLX)

[Spideyboy]

Hi Kronberg,

First of all, if English is a foreign language to you then I tip my hat to you as your English is very good indeed.

Second, yes the graph in CC Abbott's article, is just an excel plot she made herself based on the same data she has in the table above the graph. Which is a table of data she collected herself from different manufacturer websites.

And yes the data in the table and thus in the graph are clearly flawed as what she has done there is to put in the Protalix Sales of alpha-taliglucerase, which were sold to Pfizer. This is irrelevant because if she wants to see the market value of the product, while the Protalix sales to Pfizer may come in at the 12 million (from your post 2238), but the Pfizer sales onto the patient market will come in at many more multiples, because we know Pfizer is charging approx 500,000 dollars for a treatment of Elelyso. And the leading product Cerezyme is in the 400,000 dollar mark.

So what she needs to do, is look at the market and value share that Pfizer has and that will be the true market and value of alpha-taligluerase based on Pfizer's efforts and costing. But she didn't do that, which again shows she's being an idiot.

I did a check myself and yes you are correct, in all recent articles, the top 4 key players are:

Sanofi
Shire
Actelion Pharma
Pfizer (Protalix's Elelyso)

http://www.erienewsnow.com/story/37730148/gaucher-disease-market-2018-global-trends-market-share-industry-size-growth-opportunities-and-forecast-to-2023

And for which there are about 10 other smaller players. So if Pfizer (Elelyso) is in the top 4, then it cannot be having the 9 million revenue or 0.7% of total gaucher market sales. That would mean that Pfizer has only managed to sell the product to a total of max 20 patients (18*500,000 = 9 million). If you only sold to a max of 20 patients globally, hardly looks like you would be found in the top 4 now does it.

Again her problem was looking at the sales of Protalix to Pfizer, and taking that as the same cost as Pfizer sales to patients.

Based on the feedback from her first idiotic article, she clearly wasn't thinking straight when she wanted to follow-up as she was most likely in a mood of defiance, but was not being objective or thinking properly when she wrote it. Again from this extra bit of deeper analysis, we can see she not only again proved herself to be an idiot, but also clearly biased in her thinking. She should not be writing on SA if she is going to continue like that.