Agree completely Trding. Leronlimab is absolutely unique in it's lack of SAEs so far. Many--maybe all? cancer drugs are very toxic so not only are they are expensive, the question often becomes, when and how much of them we should use. If as RP believes CCR5 is important to metastasis, then almost by definition, if a patient's cancer biopsy comes back as CCR5+, it is bad news and aggressive with decreased survival rates. At that point, what would be rationale for not starting them on leronlimab outside of price?

This all in my opinion. I am not knowledgeable in oncology so only simple rationalization on my part.

The other part here, us that if the drug can target half the cancers and other diseases they are hoping for, the market is mind boggling. Financially and politically, there is no way the world market can sustain a drug that generates more than 100 billion in revenues annually. Bernie Sanders would be coming for Nader's head.

A possible strategy could be to start at 120k upon approval for a smaller population of very sick MDR HIV and TNBC patients. Then reduce the price to 35k for everyone after mono approval with much fanfare and publicity. Maybe present this at Capitol Hill while shaming BP and winning bipartisan political support.

All of this also assumes the drug works as hoped which remains to be seen.