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.

Biotech / Medical : Immunomedics (IMMU) - moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gary123 who wrote (38501)	1/7/2017 12:07:30 PM
From: sukit	3 Recommendations Recommended By erippetoe ladyPI patlawche11 Respond to of 63290

I agree but either way I would rather business people execute that strategy rather than a husband and wife team who can't seem to get a damn thing done other than stock dilution. This for me is a case where I no longer want to dance with the devil I know.

To: gary123 who wrote (38501)	1/7/2017 12:25:32 PM
From: idahoranch1	Respond to of 63290

Gary, the path for V-mab should have been to get it approved in an autoimmune disease where you don't go up against the standard of care, you just prove efficacy and safety. The company was kind of doing that with the deal with Nycomed where they licensed it for autoimmune only. They got $60 million there, but the compound was never advanced except for a small phase ll in ITP, a trial that IMMU started. It was unlucky in that Nycomed decided to put itself up for sale right after they made the deal and cut R&D significantly and V went on the shelf. When Takeda bought Nycomed, it would not surprise me if they would have kept V if they could have gotten all indications, cancer included, without paying a bunch more for it and not having to run a head to head phase lll trial. Just guessing there, but they simply let it go back, with a little skirmish with the company. Don't skirmish, DO A DEAL, whatever deal can be made. So you get V-mab approved in an autoimmune disease, then you price it at a discount to Rituxan. Since the initial infusion of Rituxan runs 5-9 hours and V-mab can be administered with a push injection, the savings cost of treating is huge, not counting the discount of the antibody itself. Armed with some phase ll data that sales people could hand to oncologists (but not "sell" it), the cost savings and ease of injecting and the likely equal or better efficacy, it would have eaten away at the $7 billion Rituxan market. But the company was not willing to license it as a "me too" treatment, I'm convinced they wanted someone to go head to head with Rituxan which would have been risky and expensive and at whatever upfront and royalty they wanted, they couldn't find a taker. Thus the comment Dr. Goldenberg made in a CC a few years ago about finding a partner with the "courage" to take on V-mab. His meaning of "courage" was likely someone who would pay him what he wanted and go head to head with Rituxan in a phase lll trial.