Dammit. I was hoping you wouldn't post. You are a contra indicator. But maybe this time you'll be right.
Actually, I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about Africa. I'm talking about the United States. If Ebola makes its way to the United States--the CDC believes that it will--you can be sure the gov't is going to consider it a crisis that needs to be stopped immediately. At that point, those companies that have Ebola therapies would likely administer the supply they have available to patients willing to accept them via compassionate use. These companies would likely administer these as part of a clinical study protocol--so yes, the company would eat the cost initially.
However, in SRPT's case, they already have a couple of dozen doses available. Assuming the drug is used and it works with a high success rate and little to no safety issues, I don't think it's likely, or reasonable, for the government to say, "Great. Now make some more. Oh, and you have to pay for it out of your own pocket." Doesn't work that way. The gov't would pony up any money necessary to provide effective treatments at that point.
So the major wildcard is... Does Ebola make its way into the United States?
Obviously, I hope it doesn't. Especially since I live 10 minutes from Manhattan, and NYC would be one of the most likely places it would arrive in.
I agree with copp. I think you're wrong about funding if SRPT's drug is used and found to work effectively. There's no way that the gov't is going to only rely on the companies that it currently has contracts with. If SRPT's drug works, the gov't will pony up for the simple reason that manufacturing enough supply can't be placed on one company's shoulders, particularly a smaller company such as TKMR. You'll see several companies manufacturing their respective drugs.
Correct. Even if several drug companies are working on an Ebola treatment, it's safe to say that none of them have stockpiles of the drug. The United States will want to get its hands on as many tretments as it can, including Sarepta's.
Gary, the second paragraph in your quote is riddled with glaring errors. I recommend ignoring that analyst from now on. His/her DD skills are awful.
Simp, doesn't look as if the open interest in Jan puts changed at all from yesterday. If you are using yahoo's option chain as a guide, it's wrong, just like it often is. I don't think the options market is the reason for yesterday's drop.
Good. Then you'll stop posting. Make sure you tell her ASAP. We'll all miss you.*
*The last sentence was a lie. No one will miss you. Not even your wife.
Gary is a good guy, but he needs to quit with the big predictions right before presentations and such.
[surrogate-based approval (AA) might then be immediate, according to the FDASIA laws]
Please explain how this is true. I don't believe any drug has ever been approved without going through the regulatory process first, so I find it highly unlikely your scenario will occur. Can you provide examples?
I agree that approval could come quicker because going through the regulatory process at a faster pace, but I don't think it can or will be skipped, as you seem to be suggesting.
Are you kidding? Vical is good for trading only. Not investing. It's a junk biotech that should have stopped pushing #$%$ therapies long ago. Companies like Vical are shameful.
Big pharma isn't worried about partnering a program just for the positive press. They are worried about pleasing investors and making money. Partnering for Ebola is a pipe dream and just a bit too pumpy. Not gonna happen.
Please cite one example of a big pharma that has partnered for a viral drug such as Ebola or Marburg. By that, I mean partnered for that drug only; not for the platform. I doubt you will find any examples. The cost/benefit analysis isn't worth it to big pharma.
Since we're adding dos and don'ts, I'd like to add one: Never listen to any message board poster who only posts on one stock's message board. That person is present for manipulative purposes only.
Gonna finally put you on ignore, moron.