I like the idea, but I think it's more likely that the situation is more similar to Enanta's; it's harder now to show differentiation in a weaker form of the virus and with the current aggregate of people with natural immunity and/or vaccine derived immunity.
As to the effect of the lawsuit, IF the Enanta case shows merit and Pfizer has to pay Enanta some amount of money it could finance a possible self funded third phase trial of EDP-235, which could impact sales of Paxlovid or impact further sales of ANY covid antivirals. Following that thought, it could also explain reluctance to partner with Enanta to develop EDP-235 in phase 3 trials (what if Pfizer wins the suit?)
It's a separate question as to whether Enanta's or Pfizer's new compound is best. We may never know.
Likewise if Pfizer doesn't develop their new compound we won't know about that outcome.
As with a swine flu or avian flu they often just go away, and resurface again.
Yet COVID (they say) will always be with us and there remains a possibility that a more threatening form will resurface- and when it does it may again reappear in groups that have lost the natural and vaccine derived immunity. Higher lethality?
It's possible either COVID antivirus could be on hold until such a time that its more fiscally sound to continue trials. Some bean counter with have to decide that OR a re-emergence of a more lethal form may make it a no-brainer.
I'm just sitting on the sidelines waiting and hoping. : )
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
