ALNY initiated the PCSK9 program against hypercholesterolemia. There is no comparison for the robustness of siRNA technology. ALNY technology induces minimal immune response if at all. Cell targeting for PCSK9 is not a problem because: (1) ALNY already has the technologies to target liver cells(liposomal), (2) siRNA against PCSK9 does not have to be targeted because people who congenitally lack or have dysfunctional PCSK9 gene thrive and have far less heart attacks (see above earlier posts).
If what you say is TRUE, "There is no comparison for the robustness of siRNA technology.", then why did Bristol-Myer-Squibb select ISIS (Antisense) for the $200 million PCSK9 deal, rather than ALNY?
I think you, as an investor, should be asking the ALNY management some serious QUESTIONS? Is ALNY's DELIVERY sound? What HAPPENS to efficacy with that delivery mode? What are the COST comparisons with Antisense? Does ALNY have a competitive advantage here? Why did ALNY lose out to ISIS? Is ALNY really, "Not Ready for Prime Time!"??
If you cannot answer those questions to some degree, and be satisfied, then perhaps you should be investing elsewhere. This is NOT investment advice - - just my honest opinion.
This BMY deal is so minuscule compared to the potential market for the cholesterol drug, and ALNY would certainly have refused a possible offer. For many people statin drugs don't lower the lipid levels. The market for lipid lowering drugs is absolutely huge ... several billion dollars.
ISIS is also pursuing siRNA path. They know too well how unreliable antisense technology is.
Have you not heard of apoB gene silencing in a primate study by ALNY scientists? It lowered cholesterol by more than half. ALNY has the technology to deliver siRNA to liver. This work is published in NATURE last year. They also have the technology to deliver to the tumor cells(Judy Lieberman's work, she is a ALNY scientific board member.).