To: Vector1 who wrote (5143 ) 6/18/1998 6:09:00 PM From: scaram(o)uche Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9719
V1: Well, there are complexities to the answer. First, the IMNR vaccine is the exact complement to the VaxGen vaccine.... it is gp120 negative. So, your article is not relevant. However, that just means that the competitors, as it always appeared, aren't much competition. Can the "core" antigens constitute an effective vaccine? I've always thought not, but my focus was on the induction of strong, protective immunity in naive humans. AGPH has clearly said that the IMNR data in patients on HAART is compelling, and we'll see it from Geneva. There is the constant thought that chemokine receptors play an important role in binding subsequent to the CD4-gp120 interaction, and the IMNR vaccine has been shown to raise the levels of the CCR3- and CCR5-binding chemokines. I agree with you.... AGPH is driven to utilize that sales force. They are smart. My bets are clearly splayed out in their favor, but I win as long as somebody wins. Now, returning to gp120..... I guarantee that AGPH is in the lab right now, trying to fill that deep crevice. Integrase..... AGPH isn't the most advanced program, but they'll be one of the best when they get there. Buffalo humps..... see the last 20 or so posts in the AGPH thread. If the study from Australia is confirmed, crix market share will melt. Don't hold your breath. A large, expensive sales force and contract manufacturing.... can you imagine what a Merck or a Roche or a Glaxo or a DuPont could do with margins? Of effective margins, in any event. JT is in the picture, but they have consistently said that they want a pharma business...... so, that isn't all bad. DuPont could, if I read DMP 266 correctly, become the next Glaxo in one fell swoop. I suspect that Johnson wouldn't do more than a 49% deal, however. Lots of ways that AGPH can break out. Johnson has more licensing plans. Wish I knew what they were. Cheers! Rick