Thank you LaundyMoney. I also took note of the
Post# of 153805
(Total Views: 757)
Posted On: 10/01/2020 5:33:41 PM
Re: LaundryMoney #58947
Thank you LaundyMoney.
I also took note of the comment: "Yeah, so we are working with approximately 11 Big Pharmas in discussions, um, I think they're waiting on the data obviously".
And a small correction: That comment was not made by Dr.NP during the call, it was provided by Dr.SK.
For the most part, these Big and Small Pharma company statistics have been provided by Dr.SK, who at least lends some gravity to the numbers as he is not a compulsive exaggerator.
I have a somewhat different approach to these calls. I listen to each of them three times and I document small details that peak my interest. It is both a blessing and a curse because, on one hand, I am able to contextualize small statements like this one -- but on the other hand, I have a front row seat to just how inconsistent the messaging is from Dr.NP.
Notwithstanding, it is important to note that up until yesterday's call there were only 5 Big Pharma companies discussed by management. To be more specific, those companies were initially described as "Big Pharma", but that description subsequently morphed into "Worldwide Pharma". Interestingly, they are now being described once again as "Big Pharma".
Also worth noting is that the company's messaging over the past couple of months has been consistent in terms of the discussions with 7 Small Pharma companies in the following countries: Asia, Brazil, China, India, Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa. This description changed a bit in yesterday's call when Dr.SK said: "We're also working with companies in China, in Europe, North Africa, etc". Now, this was likely innocent shorthand to refer to this litany of countries without having to name them all, but the messaging was a bit different.
We now know that the company was required to sign an agreement with a Philippines-based distributor in advance of submitting documentation to their FDA, and we were told that agreement would probably be announced next week. We also now know that the company is targeting Canada for some indications, although there was no information regarding any Canadian pharma or distributor that had been contacted.
Descriptions and numbers are fuzzy. For example, why has Dr.SK vacillated between the use of terms "Big Pharma" and "Worldwide Pharma"? Do they mean different things? And exactly what criteria has been used to distinguish between what constitutes a "Big" or "Worldwide" Pharma -- versus a "Small Pharma"? For example, is a large pharma that only operates in one single country a "Big Pharma"? -- even if it is not a "Worldwide Pharma"? I'm sure you get my drift.
The inherent fuzziness of these terms and numbers makes it hard to achieve perfect situational awareness regarding exactly how many "Big Pharma" companies are really in the mix. This would not be a concern in a standard, mainstream, well-run biotech. However, CytoDyn has a long and storied history of intentionally or unintentionally mischaracterizing facts.
However, if we take the company's assertions at face value, and accept that their claim that there are now "approximately 11" Big Pharma companies in the mix, then the addition of 6 new Big Pharma companies conceivably occurred shortly after the CD10 M/M readout. This is not an insignificant development in my opinion.
Now, any reasonable person could easily understand how the CD10 M/M was not the trial to prove the company's claim that Big Pharma and Big Media were standing by. The primary and secondary endpoints of that Phase 2 trial, as well as the patient population, simply did not translate well into a clean and concise media soundbite.
However, whether or not one thinks that Big Pharma companies are good at identifying impressive therapies and attractive acquisitions, BPs must understand the function of primary and secondary endpoints in Phase 2 studies. They also must understand how difficult it is to achieve statistical significance in this patient population.
If the claim of 11 Big Pharmas is actually true, and that's an assumption, the increase in awareness and interest in leronlimab by Big Pharma bodes well for the company. Of course, this increased interest is offset by Dr.NP's recent claim that it is very difficult, and "not attractive", to "sell" individual indications because of the established Vyera pricing -- I took his use of the word "sell" to mean licenses and partnerships relating to individual indications.
I've been around enough biotech to know that the 'logical conclusion' for CytoDyn, and the 'exit strategy' for its management and board, is to be acquired. The current management team is working very hard to support arguments for fair valuation -- but they are not the team to manage a Big Pharma company.
I could conceivably envision CytoDyn serially partnering and licensing all of the individual indications to a small cadre of Big Pharma companies, and being a lean-and-mean licensing concern. However, as Dr.NP noted, the Vyera pricing structure presents a problem. The big question is -- if Vyera pricing precludes piecemeal partnering and licensing of individual indications, then what exactly are they talking about with those 11 Big Pharma companies?
I also took note of the comment: "Yeah, so we are working with approximately 11 Big Pharmas in discussions, um, I think they're waiting on the data obviously".
And a small correction: That comment was not made by Dr.NP during the call, it was provided by Dr.SK.
For the most part, these Big and Small Pharma company statistics have been provided by Dr.SK, who at least lends some gravity to the numbers as he is not a compulsive exaggerator.
I have a somewhat different approach to these calls. I listen to each of them three times and I document small details that peak my interest. It is both a blessing and a curse because, on one hand, I am able to contextualize small statements like this one -- but on the other hand, I have a front row seat to just how inconsistent the messaging is from Dr.NP.
Notwithstanding, it is important to note that up until yesterday's call there were only 5 Big Pharma companies discussed by management. To be more specific, those companies were initially described as "Big Pharma", but that description subsequently morphed into "Worldwide Pharma". Interestingly, they are now being described once again as "Big Pharma".
Also worth noting is that the company's messaging over the past couple of months has been consistent in terms of the discussions with 7 Small Pharma companies in the following countries: Asia, Brazil, China, India, Europe, Middle East, Northern Africa. This description changed a bit in yesterday's call when Dr.SK said: "We're also working with companies in China, in Europe, North Africa, etc". Now, this was likely innocent shorthand to refer to this litany of countries without having to name them all, but the messaging was a bit different.
We now know that the company was required to sign an agreement with a Philippines-based distributor in advance of submitting documentation to their FDA, and we were told that agreement would probably be announced next week. We also now know that the company is targeting Canada for some indications, although there was no information regarding any Canadian pharma or distributor that had been contacted.
Descriptions and numbers are fuzzy. For example, why has Dr.SK vacillated between the use of terms "Big Pharma" and "Worldwide Pharma"? Do they mean different things? And exactly what criteria has been used to distinguish between what constitutes a "Big" or "Worldwide" Pharma -- versus a "Small Pharma"? For example, is a large pharma that only operates in one single country a "Big Pharma"? -- even if it is not a "Worldwide Pharma"? I'm sure you get my drift.
The inherent fuzziness of these terms and numbers makes it hard to achieve perfect situational awareness regarding exactly how many "Big Pharma" companies are really in the mix. This would not be a concern in a standard, mainstream, well-run biotech. However, CytoDyn has a long and storied history of intentionally or unintentionally mischaracterizing facts.
However, if we take the company's assertions at face value, and accept that their claim that there are now "approximately 11" Big Pharma companies in the mix, then the addition of 6 new Big Pharma companies conceivably occurred shortly after the CD10 M/M readout. This is not an insignificant development in my opinion.
Now, any reasonable person could easily understand how the CD10 M/M was not the trial to prove the company's claim that Big Pharma and Big Media were standing by. The primary and secondary endpoints of that Phase 2 trial, as well as the patient population, simply did not translate well into a clean and concise media soundbite.
However, whether or not one thinks that Big Pharma companies are good at identifying impressive therapies and attractive acquisitions, BPs must understand the function of primary and secondary endpoints in Phase 2 studies. They also must understand how difficult it is to achieve statistical significance in this patient population.
If the claim of 11 Big Pharmas is actually true, and that's an assumption, the increase in awareness and interest in leronlimab by Big Pharma bodes well for the company. Of course, this increased interest is offset by Dr.NP's recent claim that it is very difficult, and "not attractive", to "sell" individual indications because of the established Vyera pricing -- I took his use of the word "sell" to mean licenses and partnerships relating to individual indications.
I've been around enough biotech to know that the 'logical conclusion' for CytoDyn, and the 'exit strategy' for its management and board, is to be acquired. The current management team is working very hard to support arguments for fair valuation -- but they are not the team to manage a Big Pharma company.
I could conceivably envision CytoDyn serially partnering and licensing all of the individual indications to a small cadre of Big Pharma companies, and being a lean-and-mean licensing concern. However, as Dr.NP noted, the Vyera pricing structure presents a problem. The big question is -- if Vyera pricing precludes piecemeal partnering and licensing of individual indications, then what exactly are they talking about with those 11 Big Pharma companies?
(18)
(0)