SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Biotech / Medical : VD's Model Portfolio & Discussion Thread
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Pseudo Biologist who wrote (1896)8/6/1997 1:51:00 AM
From: T. Mann   of 9719
 
The AVIR thread is too scary to participate so I would like to pose a few points for discussion here.

I clearly see the positives of the vaccine: great phase III trial, potentially huge new market (at this time, flu immunization of healthy kids is not even recommended) and many more.

However, there are some negatives:

1.Phase II efficacy was good but not as great (mid 80% - similar to injectable vaccines). Could this trial be a fluke? (BTW, will AVIR be required to do another trial this winter?).

2.Competition. BIOTA/GLX GG167 (nasal drops) offered 100% protection from all strains of influenza A and B. It is likely to be approved before the AVIR vaccine. GILD's GS4104 (oral) is likely to show similar efficacy. It could be approved in 1999. Both of these drugs will compete with the vaccine. Also, an oral vaccine (Cortecs) could be available by 2001-2002.

3.I've had a brief conversation with a friend virologist who mentioned possible complicating issues with the AVIR vaccine.
a. Stability of the cold attenuated virus has been known to be a problem.
b. A possibility that the genetically altered influenza virus would revert to its wild form. (This person does not know if these issues have been addressed by AVIR).

4. More questions: Why the data was not presented at an appropriate scientific forum? The ICAAC in Toronto is less than 2 months away. Why the vaccine development was dropped by Ayerst and the rights returned to the U of Michigan? A lack of patent protection or something else?

5. Valuation: With AVIR stock at $13/share, it was already known that the vaccine works well. Is the 8% difference between 85% and 93% efficacy really worth $20 at this point?

Respectfully,

T.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News