Biotech Values

[dewophile]

Here is the transcript of a cc in which I found Dolsten off putting:

https://s28.q4cdn.com/781576035/files/doc_downloads/2022/09/PFE-USQ_Transcript_2022-09-07.pdf

For example:

there's one question that I forgot to ask when we were talking about vaccines, was the pneumococcal vaccines. And GSK,
the other company, made an acquisition of Affinivax, which offers higher number of serotype targeting, they would claim, raising the bar again

Well, I recall that company made an attempt earlier to break in with their 10-valent. And I think it's a hardly used vaccine. I think it's a very late
entrant, with Pfizer being by far the leader with our 20-valent. Merck being a long-term player as a second company there.
We have monitored this technology that you referred to, and we didn't think it had the technological sophistication that was interesting to us. And
I think you need a very deep knowledge base on how many different serotype you can put into one single vaccination campaign, to design and
get the data that allow you to establish a new vaccine as the preferred standard.We're working on numerous follow-on vaccines. This is a game where you never can relax in a comfortable chair like this. You always need to lean forward and push the frontier. And believe me, I think there's little room for the company referred to. And I wish them the same luck as they had in the COVID.

And hopefully, they will do better here

GSk's covid vaccine was obviously a flop, so this last line I highlighted is downright unprofessional wishing them failure w pneumococcal vaccine. how about we will continue to evolve too and make sure we stay ahead of competition etc.
This was of course during the height of the covid success and the arrogance comes through

another example trying to shit on a competitor:

Andrew Simon Baum - Citigroup Inc., Research Division - Global Head of Healthcare Research and MD
So it's tough to benchmark because, of course, GSK hasn't shared the data. But they seem to be intimating, for the equivalent of 3-plus symptoms,
somewhere around the 80% mark, which would put them in a certainly competitive, if not stronger position than you. But obviously, we need to
see the data, and we can't make judgments there.
One might imagine that the presence of the adjuvant may result in 2 impacts. Number one, a greater level of protection in the older, whether
they're immunosenescence. So I was curious as if you could share a little bit of information about how many patients in your trial were above the
age of 65, 70, and whether you saw the same VE as you did in younger patients.
And then second, that may also translate into the duration of protection. And obviously, we can't comment yet, but data will on that will emerge
in the fullness. Again, any thoughts there?
Mikael Dolsten - Pfizer Inc. - Chief Scientific Officer and President of Worldwide Research, Development & Medical
Well, we will share more data at conferences. And I can only say that the data I've looked at looks really strong. I would have been having difficulties
to imagine a better outcome than what we saw (really? Many vaccines are >90% efficacy across the board w flu being more the outlier). And I think it will be seen as a premier vaccine, all the older adult population, particularly that's
the most vulnerable (PFE had subpar efficacy in the "most vulnerable", and GSK has said this has been one of the biggest reasons for the relative success vs PFE thus far in the older pts w comorbidities). And then we are the only one that have a maternal vaccine. I think the company referred to failed in that area.
I tend to say that having an adjuvant is a liability if not needed. And we did study some adjuvants and found that our 2 RSV pre-fusion F antigens
did so well by themselves (the truth is they tested an adjuvant but it didn't improve immune response at all - I am sure if it did they would have carried it forward), and our tolerability is phenomenal (this is true). If you can avoid adjuvants, you are usually on a positive side because with each
adjuvant, you elevate the risk for rare adverse events, particularly immunological rare events (well as it turns out PFE has more immunological events. they tried to hide once case of GBS in their data set and were called out at ACIP on that - separately listing the GS variant miller fisher syn) , that may be seen as you accumulate more patients
on your product.
Now we also view
that, over time, we will see a lot of combination vaccines evolve in this space. We don't know exactly when would be a nice
rhythm to revaccinate for RSV. But we certainly know there will be annual vaccinations, probably very likely, for COVID, for flu. And in some way,
RSV will likely be integrated. Having quite strong adjuvants as the other company will hamper your ability to build a comprehensive combination
franchise as we see has been so important in adult and infant vaccination schedule.
So this was part of our overall strategy. But of course, you may think differently if you have success in pneumococcal, in COVID, in RSV, than if you
have more of a lonely stand-alone effort. But that's really the strength of Pfizer. We go in all in and we want to offer patient-friendly solutions to
deal with the total burden of respiratory infections here.

Here is what he had to say then in the obesity space:

. And clearly, small
molecules, where we have probably the largest in the world knowledge base about structure activity. We have a leading structure-based drug
design, virtual screening, AI-powered technology, all of that were example behind PAXLOVID. (really paxlovid was AI powered, or are you throwing in AI bc it is in vogue?) They are example that helped us to design I think
the only in-house pharma oral GLP-1, that's a true small molecule based on that unique small molecule capability. (um what about LLY?)
6We are blessed to have 2 different drugs. Many of you may be familiar with danuglipron that have been shown in repeat Phase 2 studies to have
a very nice effect on both lowering of HbA1c and body weight. As we refined our drug design, we have been able to move a second one with the
Pfizer #1532, which has, beyond what danuglipron has, a once-a-day, very optimal half-life with a sustaining, a very nice active dose over the entire
24 hours in patients.
And that 1532 is now entering Phase 2b studies. We will share later at conferences how we were able to normalize studies of only 4 to 6 weeks
titration studies. We will normalize fasting plasma glucose, have a remarkable effect on HbA1c and robust short-term effect on body weight
reduction. So that looks to me as a potential, really premier, best-in-class oral small molecule.
Why is that so important? Well, the GLP, and to come, the GIP/GLP class, is the most powerful antidiabetics, and today by far, maybe the only really
persuasive anti-obesity medicines.
But still, they are used among patients that need -- in just the low number of percentage. And whether you have diabetes or obesity there, you
could say, in diabetes, they have still moderate market share because they are injectable and not oral. In obesity, they have a higher market share,
but very few patients are treated because they're injectable and not oral.
So we see a tremendous opportunity, based on 1532 and danuglipron as an alternative over the next year, maybe 1.5 years, to cherry pick the dose
and move swiftly with 1 of them into pivotal studies. And our vision here is really to, within the oral segment, be by far the most efficacious drugs.
And within the segment of any diabetic obesity drug, be as good, but the most convenient opportunity for patients to really capitalize on the great
story so far, how these drugs have, near-term, improved glucose and weight control; and long term, really good vascular outcomes.
I think there will also be on cardiovascular outcomes, powerful drugs or other diseases, such as NASH. So it's one of our big next efforts. We kind
of now label it Lightspeed project, and we're bringing all our knowledge we had from many other Lightspeed programs. It started, of course, with
the way we develop Comirnaty and PAXLOVID (again bringing up covid success to show their capability, when in fact paxlovid was a happy accident that a drug for prior sars agent happened to be effective for covid, and comirnaty was a brilliant stroke by PFE, but the R&D was virtually entirely BNTX. "project lightspeed" is kind of like talking about "AI", just a nice buzzword that sounds great but means nothing IMO) . And you will see a tremendous focus from us in building what we think would be one of the big
next oral drug segments

I don't follow PFE, and am sure he did some great things wrt drug development for PFE and society in general, but boy was he puffed up when PFE was flying high. zero humility at the time