frog...One of the key questions for me has been deciding just when Gabriel actually became "involved" with DNAP.
I can document that Gabriel's association with Gomez goes back, at least, to January 2002 because that's when he and Gomez formed the Genbiomics consultancy business. Of course, Gomez soon after became a member of DNAPrint's BOD, and DNAPrint entered into a consulting contract with Genbiomics. So in essence, Gabriel's association with respect to DNAPrint dates back to early 2002.
As you are also aware, I attended the National Managed Healthcare Congress in September 2002 in Chicago and sat in on a 2 hour roundtable discussion with Dr. Frudakis, Dr. Moskowitz, Dr. Michael Lehman of U of Pennsylvania, and several others. Something I don't know that I ever mentioned was the discussion concerning Dr. Frudakis' belief that there needed to be a new model for drug development. It was his belief that they needed to find a generic drug maker that would be willing to add a research capability to their operation, because big pharma was clearly bucking the personalization of medicine, preferring, for obvious reasons, the blockbuster model. I never discussed it here because it didn't seem relevant.
As I look at Biofrontera, I see a sort of flip side to Dr. Frudakis' idea. In other words, rather than find a generic manufacturer willing to do research, they seem to have found a pure research type of Biopharmaceutical company that outsources the manufacturing. Gabriel has said on more than one occasion that the manufacturing process is easily outsourced.
I think Biofrontera fits DNAPrint's needs quite well, and given Gabriel's prior association, and his relationship to Gomez, I think it's very reasonable to speculate that it may have been Gabriel's association with Biofrontera that got him in the door at DNAPrint to begin with. "I can make this happen, but in order to do that, I have to be in charge."
So I would agree with your view that the driving force for this agreement originated with Gabriel, and undoubtedly before he became the CEO, but he was already working under contract with Genbiomics FOR DNAPrint and this may have been part of his charge all along.
As for the "hard part" of the question, I guess it's possible, but I have a different view. It is my view that DNAPrint may have been silently collaborating with Biofrontera since Gabriel arrived at DNAPrint. I mean, don't you find it odd that DNAPrint silently dissolves their skin cancer research collaboration with Penn State in February 2004, and then Biofrontera suddenly comes out with a "dermatology" product in MARCH of 2004?
What strikes me as I go through the PR page on Biofrontera's website is that from their beginning they have been specialized in CNS disorders. ALL of the PR's emphasized work in Parkinson's, Alzheimers, and neuropathic pain. All of the pharmaceutical collaborations - Janzen, Shering, Kiadis, dealt with CNS disorders. So when we arrive at the March 30, 2004 PR announcing that Biofrontera's Uticaria drug was highly effective in Stage II clinical trials, I find myself asking WHERE the Hell did THAT come from...lol
Not only is there no mention of them working on dematology products up until that point, but shortly after the DNAPrint investment is announced they in-license another dematology product and change their "About Biofrontera" text to this:
About Biofrontera AG
Biofrontera is aiming to become a specialty pharma business, initially in the field of dermatology, with internal research capacity to extend its drug pipeline. Major shareholders of Biofrontera include Heidelberg Innovation and the 3i group. DNAPrint genomics Inc., a genomics-based company based in Sarasota, FL, recently also agreed to acquire a significant stake in Biofrontera.
Say what? Dermatology? I thought they specialized in CNS disorders. So where did this Uricaria drug come from, and what is it that caused them, after years, to change their focus to "dermatology"?
I think, and this is my speculation only, that the answer to both of these questions is the same as the answer to the question, why would Biofrontera and their investors allow DNAPrint to step in and purchase majority interest in their company? And why would Dutchess agree to put up $35 Million by purchasing shares at 96% of market?
I don't have even a hint of evidence to support this theory, but my intuition is that DNAPrint had something to do with the development of that Uticaria drug already, and it is that science and perhaps some other discoveries made along the way that caused them to also in-license the basal cell carcinoma drug.
Pretty wild, huh? Think I need to go take my meds...lol
Later,
W2P
