mcbio, turtle, tony, dewophile, iwfal, et al: given the large number of press releases from EASL, rather than commenting on each PR individually, let me suggest that we open the floor for anyone to opine as to what was newsworthy (and what wasn’t). T.i.a. to anyone who cares to chime in.
I haven't had much time to spend reading the PRs but will just add a few brief thoughts. All told, I don't think my big picture thoughts have changed much.
Obviously, the ACHN news was nothing new at all, so I was disappointed to see a bit of a sell-off in the stock as investors should have known this in advance. Perhaps they were expecting a partnership announcement but the stock had run up a bit of late too so the stock really just gave up some of those recent gains.
IDIX news was very good on 184 and the pre-clinical compounds. Hopefully IDIX can land a partner for 184 sometime later this year. I do wonder if the news and building buzz around IDX320 is going to hurt ACHN in its chances in landing a partnership, and in particular a lucrative one, for ACH-1625. Although ACH-1625 has proven itself so far in the clinic and is much further ahead than the pre-clinical IDX320, the possibility of an even "better" PI down the road is something that I guess could possibly be a hindrance so I'm glad I have both of my bases covered. ; ) Of course ACHN has its own super PI in ACH-2684, notwithstanding the fact that it is clearly behind IDX320.
VRUS continues to crank out good news, although I think you and I both continue to agree that the stock looks pretty rich. I don't see myself becoming interested in VRUS at any point given the valuation. I am curious to hear your thoughts on the PSI-7977 Phase 2 news in comparison to the IDX184 news (#msg-49048250). Any specific comments on efficacy between the two nukes would be appreciated (both seem to be comparably safe given news to date).
I don't share ghmm's optimism with respect to ITMN-191. ; ) (And I wish I did given that ARRY would benefit from ITMN-191 success.) If it's becoming clear that the only way to resolve potential safety concerns with ITMN-191 is to utilize a lower dose that needs a booster, what's going to differentiate ITMN-191 in the clinic from much more potent and potentially safer PIs such as ACH-1625 and IDX320 that likely won't need a booster?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
