Those who have followed my posts know that about six months ago I predicted that EPCT would likely be forced to do a self launch of ceplene. Today's announcement appears indeed to be a harbinger of that strategy.
And I reiterate an earlier prediction: a self launch will be disastrous. Despite this single new hire, they have no experience launching and marketing a drug, especially on another continent. One has to wonder why there is a lack of significant partner interest. My contention remains that it surrounds reimbursement issues given the nature of the compound.
And such an undertaking will require massive amounts of cash, so the expected new share offering will need to be substantial.
All my opinion, yes but thusfar, I think I have been right on the mark.
when discussing Epicept do make a jugement out of some reasonable terms:
IS Ceplene an orphan drug having high efficacy or not?
Will NP-1 have a nice deal or not, given the comparison in the phase II trial versus neuro-pain and the results agains the market leader gabapentin (Lyrica)? I have given you something here in earlier posts.
The EMEA statement on the staus of Ceplene as one of the more important approvals in Europe 2008 (12 by 68) AND
The release about the conference in Paris stating that Ceplene is a n e t g a i n e r in helth care seen from an economic perspective. The patient administer the drug them self at home - and, the drug is successfull.
Yes, it is true that management recruite the best there is in the industry of oncology and hematology. The application round 2, the design of the trials the negotiations. They are there.
What about taking one of the staf that nobody knows, asking: "Is he really doing his job?" Among people I have around me that is a peculiar way of looking upon people and the world around.
Give the chap a call. Tell him your own terrific story and demand that he...
>”Plus, they already have a hotshot Harvard and MIT educated VP for bus development, what has he done?”<
Though Jonaustin is wrong in some of his speculations on the value and utility of drugs, he’s right here. Talley has marketed this guy Chen as a VP “Business deveopment”. However as a matter of fact this fellow is simply a joke. For years a mega flop who has only absorbed further EPCT money for a useless salary.
It‘s nice to hear all the time the merry tales on „impressive track records“. What about that these impressive boys also deliver at any time any concrete results? So far we only see generous self services with new options and incentives.
<Those who have followed my posts know that about six months ago I predicted that EPCT would likely be forced to do a self launch of ceplene. Today's announcement appears indeed to be a harbinger of that strategy.>
Nice disinformation try. The new marketing position is ONLY for Canada and the USA. Even North America could be partnered, as the marketing position would become an oversight job.
EpiCept will NOT self launch in Europe.
Not sure what PR you read, but I don't see the following: "The new marketing position is ONLY for Canada and the USA" anywhere in it.
Such a prospect would be counter-intuitive anyway, even if you assume the position is just for N.America for a couple or reasons that apparently escaped you:
1 - I cannot imagine a scenario where ANY significant EU pharma partner who has an existing oncology infrastructure, and who licenses ceplene, would not ALSO retain an option for North America.
2 - A possible approval for Canada is many months away, and the US probably a year away. Thus considering that partner "discussions" are ongoing, I CANNOT imagine then WHY they would jump the gun and hire a sales VP at this point UNLESS they intended to go it alone.
3 - Companies that out-license their drugs do not hire Sales and Marketing VPs with 25 years experience to "oversee" their partners. That's laughable, you do not know what you are talking about.
The fact is that in over a year Jack Talley could not find a marketing partner for Ceplene. We know one walked away at the last minute, during the Rodman & Renshaw Conference he said the negotiations where wrapping up "to the point he was now focusing on the FDA application", then he takes a last minute trip to a partnering conference in Europe...where he tells us the FDA application is going to be in 2010.. looks to me like partner number two also walked away, and we are not making any progress... We just don't know what the issue is but I suspect there is just not enough money in Ceplene for Epicept and the partner (i.e. they can't agree on finances, and this is all about money after all).
With some luck we will have the FDA approval in 2011, Canada by the middle on 2010. Don't see much work for this new guy until then unless he will be managing the European partner (and so far it looks like we don't have one), or starts preparing for a Epicept launch in Europe. Lets hope the IDIS revenue can cover his paycheck until he starts making money for the company... We should make sure we ask what his role is going to be in relation to Europe during the CC next week!
But I am still frustrated with this!
[..]All my opinion, yes but thusfar, I think I have been right on the mark. [..]
Also you are one of the critical ppl on the board, you stopped
arguing with facts last months - and only tried to interpret the
few news and you were mostly busy with speculating about Ceplene
efficiency, IDIS sales, and so one...
For me - right now - it is a good news that they good some competent new.
When a small company partners a drug to a big pharma (especially if its overseas as is the case here). Their role becomes very "hands off". The big pharma takes the reins completely and handles all matters of sales and marketing, the original licensor merely collects royalties, and you don't need a sales and marketing VP to do that.
Also not that the PR touts the person's wealth of launch and sales experience.
>” I reiterate an earlier prediction: a self launch will be disastrous”<
That’s only a speculation without any evidence. It may be their new hire is the first there who has a plan. The market will show .
>”One has to wonder why there is a lack of significant partner interest”<
Also in big pharma exists a crowd of ignorant idiots
>“the nature of the compound”<
Your direction to attack all the time this point is technically simply false. The medical issue here is the context of the therapy. History has shown that most of the nice “new” cancer drugs exhibit life threatening adverse reactions and are often more harmful than helpful. Therefore in many cases a contextual approach is the safer and more effective route.
I am not sure I understand your "contextual" point.
You say: "Also in big pharma exists a crowd of ignorant idiots"
So, let me see if I have this right: your contention is that the reason that a supposedly 150million USD/yr drug hasn't been picked up, is that the pahrmas are just idiots?
That's your thesis? That's the best you can muster as an explanation?