Appreciate the responses Respert24 and Plotinus.
Well, my reason for the original post was to point out some of the difficulties that partnerships and deals and price-points for a drug with so many indications might present. I think we all agree there is a great deal of basic science around leronlimab that needs to be done. Lots of progress in the last couple years, but actionable knowledge from clinical trials will need to be done indication by indication, even organ by organ. I like this two-track approach—get leronlimab to the clinic in oncology while continuing to do basic science and pilot studies for other indications. That some of this work is funded by outside institutions speaks to Dr J’s stewardship and reputation, as well as growing awareness of CCR5 as the “Celebrity Chemokine.” (At least the academic world is taking note and helping out).
I think I have a reasonable understanding of the science behind leronlimab and CCR5 blockade… But admittedly, how Wall Street and Big Pharma operates are not my strong suits, and Respert, you have direct experience in that world. So I take your points seriously, and think your scenario of how things are going to play out is plausible… even likely. (That would be a partnership for one of the non-HIV indications in the near-future, leading to a rapid buyout, for those that didn’t read the original post).
But at the risk of sounding naive or ignorant, does Cytodyn really need the kind of sales staff, advertising, and manufacturing that Big Pharma employs? At this stage I would agree that “Cytodyn is not in a position to build out a proper go-to-market team.” But when news from successful trials hits, won’t patients and their relatives have people clamoring for this Next Great Drug? I mean, a metastatic-killing cancer drug with virtually no side effects? Part of the cure for HIV? Helps grandma think straight and remember what she said five minutes ago? Wowza! I would think it will sell itself, with Cytodyn left to coordinate the manufacturing (thank you Samsung!) and shipping product to pharmacies. Or instead of building out a sales and marketing team, can we just hire a company that specializes in that side of the pharmaceutical business?
I’d love to see Cytodyn go it alone as I’m skeptical how a Gilead or Merck would develop leronlimab. Maybe its a kind of misplaced paranoia about Big Pharma, but its not like they haven’t earned it. I fear the institutional weight—both pharma-arrogance and existing investments in the pipeline—of a corporate giant like Merck who would likely put leronlimab in the slow lane while milking cash-cow Keytruda for all its worth. (And their subcutaneous injectable version recently passed a Phase III non-inferiority trial). Certainly Gilead’s HIV franchise will take a hit if the Gates HIV cure comes to fruition. Not to mention Trodelvy. Would you trust Gilead to control leronlimab’s future development? GSK, at least, seems a kindler, gentler corporate option… And a better cultural fit with their work in HIV and the management ties with Max Lataillade.
As shareholders I think the failure of the severe Covid trial, the shenanigans of Amarex, and the tanking of the share price left most of us beaten down, depressed, and willing to accept a partnership or buyout at far less than we are really worth. (Maybe not Ohm). Well… shit ain’t like that no more! We should be asking every prospective partner—beyond the big bucks—what can you do for us? What kind of plan do you have to develop this society-changing drug? For this indication? For that indication? Our priorities are the following—how do you fit in with our vision?
We are still a penny stock… But lately we are not acting like one. And we shouldn’t be! The numerous indications we can address, the virtual absence of adverse side effects will make leronlimab a life-saving and history-making drug. Sounds like you know that. And Cytodyn knows it. “Entering 2025, the Company is in control of its own destiny.” That’s power, man. And I think you are right in saying "Pay up now, or pay much more later on." Which makes me think later on would be just fine... though I haven't been around for a decade or so like some of you.
But partner with Madrigal to make a shitty drug much better so they can win the Mash race? Crazy talk! Give Gilead the molecule of their dreams for $20 billion? Nah, you messed with us before and we don’t appreciate that. And we remember. And your $20 billion offer is, well, insulting, really. GSK--we like your plans and timelines, and your offer is in the ballpark. So let’s talk Contingent Value Rights to protect the interests of our shareholders.
You get the idea—negotiate from strength. The confidence of Dr Lalezari is notable in the December shareholder letter. What other CEO goes on the record and states: “I believe our current strategy will result in significant value return to the Company and its shareholders and should do so on an abbreviated timeline.” That ain’t waving three fingers in the air! Its the kind of low-key confidence and strength that I appreciate in anyone who is in a leadership role. Sheesh, I bet any other CEO would have pulled a reverse split on us by now to keep up appearances with Wall Street. Lalezari just keeps on pulling rabbits outta the hat—because the molecule says so!
Well Respert, a boy can dream, can’t he? Any other biotech, any other CEO and I would agree with your thoughts and the scenario you laid out. And it probably will happen—and I’ll crack you open an good old bottle of Howell Mountain Zin when it does (one of my particular faves). But I would prefer thoughtful, limited partnerships—geared towards rapidly but safely developing of a series of what might very well be Best-In-Class drugs. And if its a buyout, I would insist on CVRs that are likely to be met… In other words, deals on our terms. The molecule says so!
It’s true—I am a dreamer. But on this board I’m not the only one…
—Sherlock/Peace out—
Well, my reason for the original post was to point out some of the difficulties that partnerships and deals and price-points for a drug with so many indications might present. I think we all agree there is a great deal of basic science around leronlimab that needs to be done. Lots of progress in the last couple years, but actionable knowledge from clinical trials will need to be done indication by indication, even organ by organ. I like this two-track approach—get leronlimab to the clinic in oncology while continuing to do basic science and pilot studies for other indications. That some of this work is funded by outside institutions speaks to Dr J’s stewardship and reputation, as well as growing awareness of CCR5 as the “Celebrity Chemokine.” (At least the academic world is taking note and helping out).
I think I have a reasonable understanding of the science behind leronlimab and CCR5 blockade… But admittedly, how Wall Street and Big Pharma operates are not my strong suits, and Respert, you have direct experience in that world. So I take your points seriously, and think your scenario of how things are going to play out is plausible… even likely. (That would be a partnership for one of the non-HIV indications in the near-future, leading to a rapid buyout, for those that didn’t read the original post).
But at the risk of sounding naive or ignorant, does Cytodyn really need the kind of sales staff, advertising, and manufacturing that Big Pharma employs? At this stage I would agree that “Cytodyn is not in a position to build out a proper go-to-market team.” But when news from successful trials hits, won’t patients and their relatives have people clamoring for this Next Great Drug? I mean, a metastatic-killing cancer drug with virtually no side effects? Part of the cure for HIV? Helps grandma think straight and remember what she said five minutes ago? Wowza! I would think it will sell itself, with Cytodyn left to coordinate the manufacturing (thank you Samsung!) and shipping product to pharmacies. Or instead of building out a sales and marketing team, can we just hire a company that specializes in that side of the pharmaceutical business?
I’d love to see Cytodyn go it alone as I’m skeptical how a Gilead or Merck would develop leronlimab. Maybe its a kind of misplaced paranoia about Big Pharma, but its not like they haven’t earned it. I fear the institutional weight—both pharma-arrogance and existing investments in the pipeline—of a corporate giant like Merck who would likely put leronlimab in the slow lane while milking cash-cow Keytruda for all its worth. (And their subcutaneous injectable version recently passed a Phase III non-inferiority trial). Certainly Gilead’s HIV franchise will take a hit if the Gates HIV cure comes to fruition. Not to mention Trodelvy. Would you trust Gilead to control leronlimab’s future development? GSK, at least, seems a kindler, gentler corporate option… And a better cultural fit with their work in HIV and the management ties with Max Lataillade.
As shareholders I think the failure of the severe Covid trial, the shenanigans of Amarex, and the tanking of the share price left most of us beaten down, depressed, and willing to accept a partnership or buyout at far less than we are really worth. (Maybe not Ohm). Well… shit ain’t like that no more! We should be asking every prospective partner—beyond the big bucks—what can you do for us? What kind of plan do you have to develop this society-changing drug? For this indication? For that indication? Our priorities are the following—how do you fit in with our vision?
We are still a penny stock… But lately we are not acting like one. And we shouldn’t be! The numerous indications we can address, the virtual absence of adverse side effects will make leronlimab a life-saving and history-making drug. Sounds like you know that. And Cytodyn knows it. “Entering 2025, the Company is in control of its own destiny.” That’s power, man. And I think you are right in saying "Pay up now, or pay much more later on." Which makes me think later on would be just fine... though I haven't been around for a decade or so like some of you.
But partner with Madrigal to make a shitty drug much better so they can win the Mash race? Crazy talk! Give Gilead the molecule of their dreams for $20 billion? Nah, you messed with us before and we don’t appreciate that. And we remember. And your $20 billion offer is, well, insulting, really. GSK--we like your plans and timelines, and your offer is in the ballpark. So let’s talk Contingent Value Rights to protect the interests of our shareholders.
You get the idea—negotiate from strength. The confidence of Dr Lalezari is notable in the December shareholder letter. What other CEO goes on the record and states: “I believe our current strategy will result in significant value return to the Company and its shareholders and should do so on an abbreviated timeline.” That ain’t waving three fingers in the air! Its the kind of low-key confidence and strength that I appreciate in anyone who is in a leadership role. Sheesh, I bet any other CEO would have pulled a reverse split on us by now to keep up appearances with Wall Street. Lalezari just keeps on pulling rabbits outta the hat—because the molecule says so!
Well Respert, a boy can dream, can’t he? Any other biotech, any other CEO and I would agree with your thoughts and the scenario you laid out. And it probably will happen—and I’ll crack you open an good old bottle of Howell Mountain Zin when it does (one of my particular faves). But I would prefer thoughtful, limited partnerships—geared towards rapidly but safely developing of a series of what might very well be Best-In-Class drugs. And if its a buyout, I would insist on CVRs that are likely to be met… In other words, deals on our terms. The molecule says so!
It’s true—I am a dreamer. But on this board I’m not the only one…
—Sherlock/Peace out—
28
