Mike,
IMO, the key line in the TGEN E1A PR was from the Fournier VP:
"This decision by Fournier should in no way be interpreted negatively with regard to the value of E1A as a treatment for cancer."
While I always get queasy about break-up PR's that talk about re-focusing the departing partner's effort, you typically don't get this sort of straightforward statement: hey, there's nothing wrong with the molecule. I'm not sure what the situation is with a European company, but IMO a US pharma wouldn't say that unless they meant it.
On the general topic, lately I've heard several folks saying that gene therapy may be getting poised to start showing some results. For example:
signalsmag.com
BTW, I suspect that the folks at TGEN wouldn't agree with Signal's assessment of CF.
The theory here would be that just as with therapeutic proteins and monoclonal, once gene therapy starts to be validated everyone will flock back. Still some technical hurdles IMO, but to look at this in depth we should probably look at the expected data dates on gene therapy PII's.
And as to your "non-scientist, backboard" role, it takes diversification in fund mgmt as well as picks. Keep it up.
biowa |
