>> I don't have time to describe them "one by one". <<
Well, can you tell us why they plan to follow 50406 into the clinic with a second candidate later this year? Can you tell us if it has been tested in the Rice lab, or if validation of the target may have come from the Rice lab? Thanks!!
>> and I can tell you the best targets for drug development have all been thoroughly investigated <<
Cool. I've needed some help. Could you describe the cellular components that interact with NS5B in the membrane-ass'd replication complex? I am particularly interested in these targets, and your answer will assist me with issues beyond VPHM. You don't need to list the exact components, molecular weights will do. I realize that the information would be highly confidential, just want to compare notes. Thanks. I (actually, "we".... a private portfolio company) may want to hire you as a consultant.
If you could, please tell us why Wyeth will take a candidate into phase I trials when it's already known that the trial will fail. An addiction for liability lawsuits?
Cacaito has done a decent job of outlining conceptual problems with the RSV program. Do you have anything to add? No sense in going to phase II if it's already known that the target stinks. Not even a chance that it might save a few infants? The 14637 backup? Completely worthless? I hate it when babies die.
>> Most either center around inhibiting transcription by the corresponding RNA polymerase, proteolytic processing of precursor proteins, the inhibition of capsid degradation/formation, or the inhibition of virus binding to cell surface receptors. <<
You listed those as the "best" targets? I'll certainly agree with you that, when I learned micro in the 70s, they were hot.
BTW, I agree with you, that their focus was too narrow. They've got three years of cash. Maybe they'll buy some WCOM bonds. Or maybe they'll stay the course, and just opt for "toast".
TIA!! |
