winvestor2 I thought companies like Abbott and Bristol-Myers Squibb had no economic incentive to co-produce established drugs via any other platform other than the one that they used when the drug was approved.
Using Transgenics would increase expenses, increase possible competition and legal risks.
Increase expenses because they would need to support two systems, increase possible competition because a lower cost of production might enable financially weaker companies to compete with them on other drugs, increase legal risks in the event of adverse reactions.
If Elan had produced Tysabri via both the established methods and via Transgenics, the first case of PML would create an additional problem in trying to determine if the drug platform was causing a problem or if it was mechanism of action of the drug regardless of platform. If something adverse did occur with Transgenics, lawyers could argue drug companies took too many risks with a novel technology in order to increase profits. Having two drug platforms would require logistics to track each version.
There was also a technology issue as cell culture and microbial systems become less expensive and new technologies evolve, while Transgenics doesn't seem to get a lot of funding. I don't know why that is the case, but it is what seems to be happening.
There was no economic incentive for anyone with an already established drug to take on these risks.
But at this point I see little value in rehashing the past, so I won’t be making any more comments about GTC’s past. I make my point on Yahoo and I wouldn't have posted this much on IHUB if it weren't for Vinny's post.
I can see using GTC's Transgenics platform to produce a drug like ATryn that can't be produced any other way.
However, DewDiligence is no doubt the most knowledgeable poster concerning GTC, much more than I am. So I would address any questions concerning the future of GTC and their business models towards him.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
