I had, if you read back in this thread a few weeks, bailed from AGPH for a bit. Part of my rationale was that it was going to be difficult to buck the marketing strength of Merck and Roche (ritonavir is so deficient, IMO, that I don't see how Abbott can ethically market it). Merck and crixivan were, of course, my major concern. I have become convinced that (1) there are sufficient side effect and resistance problems with crix to further encourage activists to find alternatives, and (2) that activists will largely determine which drugs are widely publicized.
I am looking forward to a turn from tradition, where marketing clout largely determines success. Average Joe is becoming more aware of health issues and means of remedying them. In this instance, we could really be surprised by market penetration. I realize that 20% will look low to some, but I was trained in the pharma industry (Bayer); I don't want to minimize what slugging it out with Merck will mean to a little company. Big guys are really mean. :-)
And, to be honest in disclosure, while crix has its weaknesses, there are many people who believe that it has saved their lives. Hats off to Merck.
Don't get me wrong...... I haven't bet the farm on AGPH..... I have a nicely diversified basket of biotechs. However, Peter Johnson et al. have just plain been gutsy. They appear to be possessed.
Good luck in all your investments.
Rick |
