>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am a supporter of Dew and am also concerned about possible hidden agendas. It also seems PC is fluent in CC tech. We all form opinions none of which necessarly reflects absolute truth. It is possible for a post to reflect a certain amount of science yet create confusion and dissention by raising issues which are truly irrelivent. Or by another tack create immaginary goals which are unrealistic and do not in any way reflect the goals of management, but if these imaginary goals are excepted by readers lead to the conclusion the company has little chance of suceeding.
For example: The issue Atryn's glycolisation patterns has been rendered moot by the decision of the EMEA. The simple answer is they are ok.
For example: Replacement of CHO cell culture protein production by transgenic goat production is not one of GTCB's goals. Cell culture production is deeply entrenched with previously mentioned layers of bureaucratic resisence and livlyhoods on the line not to mention tradition. The horse was not replaced overnight. GTCB will do very well operating where no cell culture dares to go. Believe me, there is plenty of room. Will GTCB eventually replace CC. No one knows.
Who controls the Spice, controls the universe.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hmmm.... now this is a very interesting statement. Look fella, I'm here to inquire about specific questions that I have regarding this company's technology platform, in order to mitigate my risk as a potential investor (as much as possible). If you've read through my posts, all Ive done is ask for data. Now if that data doesn't exist because its not public info, then fine. I will take that into consideration if/when I pull the trigger.
Now, in doing this diligence (publicly on this board), you've accused me above of obfuscating what I like to call "the truth". Well, what is "the truth"? The conventional wisdom on this message board? Is that "the truth"? To illustrate this point, lets take your example above. You stated, "Replacement of CHO cell culture protein production by transgenic goat production is not one of GTCB's goals." I couldn't possibly disagree more with this statement. If you've seen the company's latest presentation (squarely front and center on their home page), in the Venn Diagram "Strategy" slide, there is a huge circle called Fob's or follow on biologics. Please review the README section for a summary of follow on biologics, and then go find out how these proteins are currently being made. In addition, the company has stated it plans on entering Phase 1 in 2008 for the CD137 mAb. Got that? Next year they're putting their first mAb in the clinic. mAbs are typically made in CHO cells. It's abundantly clear that this company has placed the CHO cell expression technology squarely in its crosshairs. Therefore, in regards to the topic of Fob's and the company's own clnical candidate, I dont think its at all unreasonable to ask for a PK/PD comparison of material derived from transgenic milk and CHO cells. That's all I asked for!
Now on to your other point, "The issue of Atryn's glycosylation patterns has been rendered moot by the decision of the EMEA. The simple answer is they are ok." Again, I couldnt disagree more with this statement. As it turned out, the form of Atryn produced in transgenic milk is underglycosylated, and consequently more rapdily cleared. The company themselves admitted they got lucky with this indication, in that the rapid clearance is probably more beneficial. For Atryn, the inconsistent glycosylation didnt appear to affect safety or efficacy, hence the EMEA approval. Now, this result with the company's most advanced compound did lead me to inquire about the degree to which the goat mammary gland secretory pathway diverges from other expressions system, validated ones in particular. I still havent answered my own question, but when if/when I do, I will be sure to share it with the board.
PS- I could really care less if you do or don't "support Dew Diligence" or find a hidden agenda in my posts.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
