>Why the interest ?
1. I think Biotech will have a nice boom on 2-5 years time - not as big as tech, but a boom.
2. Like the valuation & growth prospects of SCLN - Valuation is not base on products which are not selling or on the value of hope.
3. Viral epidemics drive what is called on Wall Street "Strong Organic Growth"
-just means without acquisitions, of course.
Also, not many other solutions for Hep C.
4. Their product is not overly specific to a disease, rather it is like an "Immune System Helper"
- you know, like Hamberger Helper. EPO might be though of as "Red Blood Cell Production Helper"
I see a similar but smaller role for Sciclone's XANDAXIAN.
So this is not in a win/lose either/or situation, but rather win/win. Some of the research cost & and effectively marketing cost will be paid by other drug companies wanting the create more effective treatments with their products.
I use to be in Semiconductor marketing, and this looks like a product which will have many uses.
I also tend to _seriously_ oversimplified explanations.
If it improves response to treatment in a statistically significant way , there will be considerable economic and medical reasons to standardize on it. Do this for a few different diseases, and 1 ) It will get tried on many other diseases and 2) It will establish a large market.
Multipe uses limit downside - if it doesn't work a given disease, or is replace by another product, that may not kill the other uses of the drug.
Sum up - reasonably priced stock, product already out and selling (except U.S.,) multiple uses, multiple growth drivers, big incentive for deep pocket drug companies to help push new uses, similar to model of another big Biotech success (easy to explain to investors) |
