Slow day... So I thought I'd ask Gemini AI "What are the BioPharmas with the most to lose if leronlimab would receive expedited approval in mTNBC or mCRC?"
No surprise that Gilead is number one, and Merck and Roche make the list. But I found the comments on Astra Zeneca most interesting--
"AstraZeneca is in the middle of a massive push into the TROP2 ADC space (Dato-DXd) for TNBC, which is expected to challenge Gilead. If a new mechanism (CCR5 inhibition by leronlimab) proves to be a game-changer, these expensive, heavily invested ADCs could face immediate competition."
I haven't ever considered shorting a company's stock before, but if I did--after approval of leronlimab in mTNBC or mCRC--Gilead would be the first. (For purely punitive reasons--let's pile on!) But AZ might be another, since they are so "massively" invested in barking up the wrong tree. (Merck and BMS are pretty heavily invested in new therapies for solid tumors, as well). Of course any of the above-mentioned Pharmas could swoop in and partner with Cytodyn... as we all expect. But when one company wins, multiple companies lose. Capitalism's a bitch, ain't it, Gilead? Unless you are on the right side of history...
Here's Gemini's response to the question:
"Based on current market competitors in 2025–2026, the following BioPharmas have the most to lose:
1. Gilead Sciences (Most Significant Risk)
Asset: Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan).
Why: Trodelvy is the leading ADC for metastatic TNBC. Leronlimab has shown potential as a lower-toxicity alternative that can extend survival in patients who have failed prior therapies. If leronlimab proves superior in efficacy and safety for TNBC, it directly threatens Gilead's market share in this high-need area.
2. Taiho Oncology / Taiho Pharmaceutical (mCRC Risk)
Asset: Lonsurf (trifluridine and tipiracil, or TAS-102).
Why: The FDA cleared a phase 2 study for leronlimab in combination with Lonsurf and Avastin for mCRC. While this is a combination, if leronlimab works well as a backbone therapy, it could eventually threaten the market share of established monotherapies like Lonsurf, which is standard for relapsed/refractory MSS mCRC.
3. Merck & Co. (Keytruda)
Asset: Keytruda (pembrolizumab).
Why: Leronlimab has demonstrated potential to increase PD-L1 expression on cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs), which could improve the effectiveness of ICIs, but also potentially allow patients to switch from or combine PD-L1 blockers with leronlimab for better outcomes, challenging Merck's dominance in TNBC and other solid tumors.
4. AstraZeneca / Daiichi Sankyo (TNBC Risk)
Asset: Dato-DXd (datopotamab deruxtecan) and Imfinzi (durvalumab).
Why: AstraZeneca is in the middle of a massive push into the TROP2 ADC space (Dato-DXd) for TNBC, which is expected to challenge Gilead. If a new mechanism (CCR5 inhibition by leronlimab) proves to be a game-changer, these expensive, heavily invested ADCs could face immediate competition.
5. Roche / Genentech
Asset: Tecentriq (atezolizumab) and Avastin (bevacizumab).
Why: As a major player in TNBC (Tecentriq) and mCRC (Avastin), Roche has a broad portfolio that could be displaced by a new, less toxic option for advanced disease."
Of course, this is also a list of who might have the most to gain from a partnership with Cytodyn. And a buyout, of course, although I'm hopeful Cytodyn will partner and explore CCR5 inhibition in chronic inflammatory diseases (think Alzheimers and atherosclerosis... and that's just the maladies beginning with "A"
. That's my hope, and wouldn't it be sweet!
This just struck me--what single company, even a Lilly or Roche--could ever fully develop leronlimab for all its potential indications? Even if you'd narrow Ohm's List down to the top 10 or 15 most promising candidates, well, that would keep any firm way too busy exploring/developing even the most obvious indications that this molecule can handle.
The rational implications of this? Leronlimab will need to be developed indication by indication by different BioPharmas, with Cytodyn slicing up the pie and evaluating/deciding who gets what. And the who and what--I would argue--won't be just about the cash. It will involve well thought out development protocols by interested firms, including capital allocation, with competing proposals for a sliver of a huge freakin' pie.
If I can figure that out... I suspect Dr Lalezari can too. Leronlimab is a society-changing therapeutic, not just a boatload of benjamins. I'll take our scruffy lookin' CEO, with a Masters in Literature who lived on a houseboat in Sausalito and saw the AIDS epidemic up close... and did something about it. With immigrant parents, one a Holocaust survivor and the other an accomplished virologist. I do believe Lalezari is uniquely qualified to run this company, at this time... not only as a scientist and businessman, but because he thinks outta the box and thinks big! Capitalism requires visionaries as well as suits and hard work. I think we got one, and we are lucky to have him.
Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that a buyout would be a sellout. Business-as-usual leaves way too much on the table for shareholders... And humanity. I guess we'll see.
No surprise that Gilead is number one, and Merck and Roche make the list. But I found the comments on Astra Zeneca most interesting--
"AstraZeneca is in the middle of a massive push into the TROP2 ADC space (Dato-DXd) for TNBC, which is expected to challenge Gilead. If a new mechanism (CCR5 inhibition by leronlimab) proves to be a game-changer, these expensive, heavily invested ADCs could face immediate competition."
I haven't ever considered shorting a company's stock before, but if I did--after approval of leronlimab in mTNBC or mCRC--Gilead would be the first. (For purely punitive reasons--let's pile on!) But AZ might be another, since they are so "massively" invested in barking up the wrong tree. (Merck and BMS are pretty heavily invested in new therapies for solid tumors, as well). Of course any of the above-mentioned Pharmas could swoop in and partner with Cytodyn... as we all expect. But when one company wins, multiple companies lose. Capitalism's a bitch, ain't it, Gilead? Unless you are on the right side of history...
Here's Gemini's response to the question:
"Based on current market competitors in 2025–2026, the following BioPharmas have the most to lose:
1. Gilead Sciences (Most Significant Risk)
Asset: Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan).
Why: Trodelvy is the leading ADC for metastatic TNBC. Leronlimab has shown potential as a lower-toxicity alternative that can extend survival in patients who have failed prior therapies. If leronlimab proves superior in efficacy and safety for TNBC, it directly threatens Gilead's market share in this high-need area.
2. Taiho Oncology / Taiho Pharmaceutical (mCRC Risk)
Asset: Lonsurf (trifluridine and tipiracil, or TAS-102).
Why: The FDA cleared a phase 2 study for leronlimab in combination with Lonsurf and Avastin for mCRC. While this is a combination, if leronlimab works well as a backbone therapy, it could eventually threaten the market share of established monotherapies like Lonsurf, which is standard for relapsed/refractory MSS mCRC.
3. Merck & Co. (Keytruda)
Asset: Keytruda (pembrolizumab).
Why: Leronlimab has demonstrated potential to increase PD-L1 expression on cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs), which could improve the effectiveness of ICIs, but also potentially allow patients to switch from or combine PD-L1 blockers with leronlimab for better outcomes, challenging Merck's dominance in TNBC and other solid tumors.
4. AstraZeneca / Daiichi Sankyo (TNBC Risk)
Asset: Dato-DXd (datopotamab deruxtecan) and Imfinzi (durvalumab).
Why: AstraZeneca is in the middle of a massive push into the TROP2 ADC space (Dato-DXd) for TNBC, which is expected to challenge Gilead. If a new mechanism (CCR5 inhibition by leronlimab) proves to be a game-changer, these expensive, heavily invested ADCs could face immediate competition.
5. Roche / Genentech
Asset: Tecentriq (atezolizumab) and Avastin (bevacizumab).
Why: As a major player in TNBC (Tecentriq) and mCRC (Avastin), Roche has a broad portfolio that could be displaced by a new, less toxic option for advanced disease."
Of course, this is also a list of who might have the most to gain from a partnership with Cytodyn. And a buyout, of course, although I'm hopeful Cytodyn will partner and explore CCR5 inhibition in chronic inflammatory diseases (think Alzheimers and atherosclerosis... and that's just the maladies beginning with "A"
. That's my hope, and wouldn't it be sweet! This just struck me--what single company, even a Lilly or Roche--could ever fully develop leronlimab for all its potential indications? Even if you'd narrow Ohm's List down to the top 10 or 15 most promising candidates, well, that would keep any firm way too busy exploring/developing even the most obvious indications that this molecule can handle.
The rational implications of this? Leronlimab will need to be developed indication by indication by different BioPharmas, with Cytodyn slicing up the pie and evaluating/deciding who gets what. And the who and what--I would argue--won't be just about the cash. It will involve well thought out development protocols by interested firms, including capital allocation, with competing proposals for a sliver of a huge freakin' pie.
If I can figure that out... I suspect Dr Lalezari can too. Leronlimab is a society-changing therapeutic, not just a boatload of benjamins. I'll take our scruffy lookin' CEO, with a Masters in Literature who lived on a houseboat in Sausalito and saw the AIDS epidemic up close... and did something about it. With immigrant parents, one a Holocaust survivor and the other an accomplished virologist. I do believe Lalezari is uniquely qualified to run this company, at this time... not only as a scientist and businessman, but because he thinks outta the box and thinks big! Capitalism requires visionaries as well as suits and hard work. I think we got one, and we are lucky to have him.
Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that a buyout would be a sellout. Business-as-usual leaves way too much on the table for shareholders... And humanity. I guess we'll see.
27
1
