Replies to post #181748 on Biotech Values

[willyw]

Nor do we know what the FDA will approve.

I noticed that Gild was really hyping the benefits of the short treatment or the one pill per day vrs multiple pills multiple times per day. : )

One can understand where some analysts, doctors or patients may buy into that.

I look towards the areas where Gilead is more silent; on treating the harder to treat, past treatment failure and cirrhotic patients.

This is decidedly an area where Gilead will be on a level field of competition with the 3D program; both will be 12 weeks and with RBV, IMHO.

The real question is what will be the percentage mix on patient treating populations who will get approved for treating in the next year or two?
This will make a huge difference in market share for the two companies.

It was also for this reason Gilead was also hyping the benefit of treating all the people with minimal damage as soon as possible. This is where the Gilead program is superior to the Abbvie 3D program. (IMHO)

This is also where the payors have some ability to push back and make sure the sickest go first.
There is a lot of subtext in these presentations.

The fact that analysts get it wrong is a reason the the share price may not reflect the stocks actual value; it isn't based on correct perceptions.

[zipjet]

GILD

FWIW - My liver-doc friend thinks that it is an unwarranted risk (rebound after too short a treatment cycle) to use the 8 week regimen given the lack of significant SE's. In fact, he has claimed that soon after treatments are started the patients claim they already feel better.