Robin, I do disagree with you vis a vis comparing agph to prln. AGPH is doing so well because they right now are considered to have the best protease inhibitor primarily because theirs has fewer side-effects than Merck's or the others around. The fact is prln may have a better product. It has much fewer side-effects than protease inhibitors and works by the totally new kinase inhibition route. Further, as brought out in the conference, it or a new wrinkle on the technology seems to show some promise on stopping HIV from mutating around it. This will be awesome if it turns out to be so. A lot of this is not understood fully by the analysts at large companies and institutions and they will be biased against it because of the dietary supplement route and won't even look at it because of that, they will continue to be impressed, for the time being, only with the FDA route. Others will take a week or two to look at this, even if they were very impressed with the presentation or subsequent news, before they commit themselves. This is SOP for them but here there is also the additional problem of so many different and unique things going on in the prln situation it will make them nervous and tentative (you know, like that Hamlet fellow). But I do think there is a good chance Androvir is head and shoulders (for the TAs on the thread, no pun intended) above agph's protease inhibitor, so far so it is mis-understood at this point. Getting it out to market, as the co. is doing, is the best and fastest way to have its effect evaluated and if it has a significant impact, the open minded and intelligent will follow (and, of course, we will forever be able to remind them that we were here first and, in fact, were present at and members of the legendary Banquet Paniculatta de Paul). I would also bet the prln pipeline of future products is going to be much more productive than that of agph.
Larry |
