Biotech Values

[willyw]

Hi DC. Many valid points. I particularly agree that it's always good to see other's negative thesis.
What do you think about the taunting or redundant posts?

For me the approval landscape is complicated- particularly for covid which has moved from pandemic to endemic and less lethal than earlier. Another, I don't feel that viral load by means of nasal swabs will be a good means of determining efficacy.

One of my complaints is that the posts were edicts; phase 3 could never happen (yet somehow Pfizer's next gen was somehow viable). The posts were invariably negative and little explanation or justification of one's thesis.

Tell me for instance; when did Enanta get the blinded data? At what point would it be possible for Enanta to share that data and under what circumstances would they share?
I would expect based upon the May Phase 2 results Enanta would then have to enter into discussion w/ the FDA to determine Phase 3 design. Would a partner sign on before they knew that outcome? In tandem? There are many moving parts.
I think that it is understood that if there is an agreement then Enanta cannot reveal much; there would have to be a joint announcement first.
--And so for me the absence of information is not proof of anything.
But the underlying thrust of Jake's posts are since there is no announcement, then there is no agreement. The fact is no one knows except insiders.

It HAS been mentioned that these agreements do not happen overnight- but per Jake, they should have been released at the May data reveal.
Reasonable?

In between my reply post and this one I got a text from a friend who has covid- for the first time it would seem. She's asymptomatic.
And she just finished her course of Paxlovid. : )

Thanks, I appreciate your thinking and time you took to post. ~W