Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (10517)	8/10/2002 2:08:37 AM
From: Montana Wildhack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Mark, "do some serious DD on the WF10 front" Your excellent post makes me think more about what is quite likely ahead. I hope Jim is right in the idea of partnering the AIDS application early. One question I have is with product differentiation in a legal sense. It sounds to me clearly that WF10's concept of rebalancing the immune system - by doing so - works for AIDS and other indications such as Hepatitis C without even a tiny change in formulation or any differentiation whatsoever. That is the one thing may work for a family of similar situations. If that is true, then it would drive the strategy for marketing the products. It would be either DMX or one partner adding indications to an existing product (assume for a moment the AIDS application is on market) rather than an ability to license each approval as a seperate product and the potential for seperate distributors/partners. Partnering with WF10 is an extensive relationship in that some 5-8 years out it could be being sold into numerous different markets. AIDS, HepC, and Crones for instance. In this sense it is a critical definer of future potential that Jim is right when he suggests that Vanderbilt may have been repeated (in extreme clarity if not mathematically). This becomes clear in thinking of marketing (for example) a new Hepatitis C approval into a medical infrastructure already familiar with the AIDS application and presumable effectiveness if those strong values were to come in. I personally like the concept of partnering early for WF10 with someone like a larger pharma with a broad range of experience. This would allow JNJ to run the US Pennsaid market, the new partner to take the multiple product life cycles on, and DMX to learn the business in Canada and Europe. With the war chest from JNJ/NASDAQ placement/WF10 upfront this would provide a more secure future in the sense that responsibility for success is shared by three different players. Clearly in the next several months the focus will shift to WF10 once the NA approvals are settled and partner signed. The Pennsaid side will move to sales tracking discussions and no other new market will draw the same attention for Pennsaid in the future. I'm extremely optimistic that DMX has finally wound its way through the FDA's stringent standards and that JNJ is more than ever interested at a crack at the huge NSAID market even if its with a safe but slightly weird topical. Anything over 3% of the market and everybody makes good money. (However I don't recommend buying the stock. At least not without an extensive read of its history.) In the meantime, less than 2 1/2 months after taking ownership we apparently have an appointment with the FDA about WF10. Wolf