Translation, the African govts don't have the money to properly monitor and quarantine patients, let alone pay for expensive anti-viral drugs. Conclusion - no African nation will ever buy TKMR's drug and the front-line support that might be provided by the US won't be for treatment, it will be for containment.
TKMR's market cap has increased by over $250M since the Ebola outbreak scare became fervent, which is over $100,000 for every patient that has been infected. Odds are that none of the African patients will ever be given TKMR's drug and unless the number of patients in the US suddenly escalates, it won't likely be used in the US, either. I wish I could short it at these levels, but Fidelity has no shares available. You'd be better off investing in the company that makes the protective suits for medical workers.
Not politically incorrect - has nothing to do with politics - it is a money/resources issue. If these African countries had the money to spend on expensive anti-viral drugs, they wouldn't have an Ebola problem, because they would have first spent the money on a medical inftrastructure that would stop potential epidemics in their tracks. That is why this disease is no real threat to the US - we have the systems in place to detect it, quarantine people and keep it from spreading. Spending precious resources on expensive drugs to treat the infected is a losing proposition if you can't control the spread of infection - better to spend your limited resources on prevention.
You keep completely missing the point. The fact that TKMR has an active govt contract means nothing - that contract is to test their drug through a series of clinical trials to determine safety and efficacy. They are not suddenly going to say, take the $30M we have committed for this year's research and spend it on giving drug to African patients - not going to happen. The hype around the FDA's move to partially lift the hold on TKMR boggles my mind - the FDA is basically saying "if somebody wants your drug, we won't stop you" - NOT that the US govt is going to pay them to distribute their drug. As I challenged copp earlier - who is the "somebody" that is going to start buying drug from any of these companies to be distributed in Africa? I agree w copp in that the safety issues TKMR's drug has (on healthy people) would make if very sketchy to give it to a very sick patient. Does that open the door for SRPT or another company - only if you believe "somebody" with big pockets will come knocking - not going to happen in a manner that changes the company's financial prospects.
Way to join the hype parade - your logic is more than dismal, it is pathetic. No doubt, the odds of an infected person making their way to the US is high - is that going to result in a city being shut down? Beyond that, any money that will be allocated to Ebola will be to prevent it from being spread - treatment for the unlucky patients will be a low priority outside the US, just like most of Africa's deadly diseases.
Again, SRPT spent years developing it because the DoD paid them to study it for potential use against a bioterrorism threat against the US or its soldiers overseas. That doesn't change the equation of who will pay for it to be used for the general population in a 3rd world country. "Covering expenses" in an emergency situation is not a business model that will bring long-term value to the company. I don't care if you want to hype the short-term spike that having an Ebola drug on hand may provide, but don't try to argue that it will be a big part of this company's long term prospects/value.
copp - You're the one who is nuts - who is the "someone" that is going to request SRPT's drug and even in the remote possibility that "someone" comes along, how many doses are they going to buy and at what price? Assuming it is an "emergency" situation, what do you think the pricing is going to be? Firms will not get away gouging govt agencies in an emergency situation, like they routinely do in "negotiated" govt contracts. Give us your timeline and revenue projection for this "request" or what your analysis is for the long-term revenue potential for an Ebola treatment.
WHO has money DoD has money? The DoD is responsible for identifying potential threats to US citizens or soldiers around the world and taking steps to protect them - that is what these contracts to SRPT, TKMR, etc. were about - not combating 3rd world diseases - they will not buy drug to be given to patients. WHO has money, but they also know that Ebola is way down on the list of health threats - they aren't going to spend millions of dollars for a drug that may help thousands of patients - they have to spend their money wisely - they will spend millions when it will help millions. Malaria kills more people in a day than Ebola has killed in this latest outbreak - do you think WHO is going to trash their malaria budget and put millions at risk to fight Ebola? I'm not advocating the reality - I'm just stating it - there is no govt agency that is going to write a check for this. Your best hope is for the Gates Foundation or someone like that throwing money at it, but even a group like that would probably focus on preventing the spread than treating the sick with expensive, experimental drugs.
I'm not bashing the Defense Department contracts - they have nothing to do with the current conversation around Ebola. TKMR got their clinical hold partially lifted and people are acting like they just received a multi-million dollar order for the drug. Tell me who is going to step up and pay these companies anywhere near what it costs them to produce the drug in quantities that are meaningful, relative to its market cap. Unless you believe Ebola will get out of control and thousands of US citizens or other westerners become sick, there is no rational pathway for the "value" of these drugs to be realized. The DoD may ratchet up funding at some point, but at this stage, they have put SRPT's drug in the back seat, and that is not going to change in response to this outbreak.
Who cares about Ebola - it is just a distraction and there is no money in it. Explain how the company makes a dime off of providing this drug to Africa - is the US govt going to "sponsor" big ticket prices for dosing African patients? The African govt doesn't even have the money to provide sound health care practices to prevent Ebola from spreading - they certainly don't have the money to pay the company the cost to produce these experimental drug. Ebola is a distraction - the sooner the outbreak is brought under control, the better, but no matter how bad it gets, any involvement by SRPT would just be a drain of resources.
I'm not short - I sold the bulk of my shares on the initial spike, but I have yet to see one post on this board explaining how any company can make money on an Ebola treatment. Unless you expect the US govt to pay you hundreds of thousands of dollars per dose, how will any company make money? If big pharma has ignored African diseases that impact millions, why do you think there is money to be made in one that only impact less than ten thousand only a handful of westerners. In the grand scheme of medical "threats" facing this country, let alone the world, Ebola is a long way down the list. The scare factor is high, but that doesn't mean there is any money to be made.
grey - The 6MWT water is so muddy right now that you can't rationalize it anymore. Of course the results are "remarkable". I think he also said that there are 3 patients that have improved over the last two years - based on the stories coming from Jen McNary, Max is probably one of them - a boy on the verge of having to use a scooter to get around and 3 years later he is walking farther than ever. This is never seen in the natural history, but once the FDA erroneously called out the natural history data as "variable" and possibly consistent with the results being seen by the Etep patients, the whole context of how to interpret the results was distorted. CG can explain it a hundred times that these boys were enrolled because they were on the verge of beginning to lose ambulation, but it is lost in the haze of the clueless who believe if the drug worked, the twins would be walking. The sad fact is that until you get to the AdCom meeting and have real experts pounding home the point that these results are borderline miraculous, nobody will listen.
Wow - I've seen some stupid posts before, but this hogan is reaching for a new level. People have questioned the value of this company's DMD platform because there are only several thousand potential patients in the US and you want him to drop DMD and concentrate on a disease that has so far afflicted two US citizens. Good call!
winter - you give the impression that somehow the timeline has shifted out, which is wrong - nothing has changed. Anybody who believed that if they filed by the end of the year, there would be approval in the first half of 2015 was just clueless. Given all the noise around the politics and potential delay/damage to the Etep filing the past month, this call put those ideas to rest - they are the same path they spoke to back in April - approval by next August was the best they could hope for back then and that hasn't changed.
This whole discussion thread misses the most obvious point - regardless of whether TKMR is allowed to "release" its drug to any region, there is no money to be made in it. Even under the most dire scenario, where the Ebola outbreak becomes worse and the disease runs rampant, TKMR would be at a disadvantage to other drugs that have not show safety issues and even if it is allowed to be "marketed", there is no money to be made here. The reason big pharma has ignored many 3rd world diseases that affect millions is there is no money in it, and people are talking about Ebola (that affects thousands) as if it is a gold mine. Get a clue!
You then have limited comprehension - just a quick check on wikipedia will give you dozens of epidemics that have killed more than ebola - the 1918 flu killed an estimated 75million - get a clue and a grip!
Be careful - it is not just about potential value, it is now about potential dilution, or in this case definite dilution. They have about 2 quarters worth of cash left, so they will have to raise money by the end of the year - better to wait until they announce how much dilution before taking a stake.
Malaria kills 1 mill plus every year - why do you think numbers of will make a difference. Besides, the chances of Ebola deaths getting beyond 10,000 is unlikely - getting to 1 mill has nil chance.
You sound like a real expert - in past outbreaks, patients seemed to recover in days? Where do people come up with this stuff? Why is it so hard to understand that deadly diseases in Africa don't generate any money and a handful of westerners unlucky enough to contract it and drag it back home with them aren't going to change that equation.
Simple - the FDA is waiting because there were safety issues related to dosing in healthy people. A drug that has toxicity to healthy people could actually make a sick person worse. When it comes to sending it to Africa, there are plenty of less expensive things we could send to Africa that would prevent more people from dying every day - food, malaria drugs, waste management systems, etc. The simple reason we don't is that they don't have the money. I'm certain TKMR's drug is very expensive to make - who is going to pay for it?