Re: RVX-297 vs RVX-208 for autoimmune indications
in response to
by
posted on
Jan 09, 2019 02:17PM
This is all interlocked with the lively conversation between KBC and SF a couple of days ago, although not directly.
Some time ago, I'll say 10 years but it's +/-, I was at an RVX AGM where it was said that they had identified 84 or 86 diseases that they could have a positive effect on over a couple different platforms. Not being a science person I didn't really understand what that actually meant. Every year since that time there has been an increasing number of articles/reports about epigenetics and how this area of medicine will help in the conquering of diseases. I don't know the full history but it has something to do with a breakthrough that a Dr Watson had a number of years earlier. As time goes by and technology gets better every year, along with the sharing of results as we are doing now between us, and between the science community, the speed at which these conquests are made gets faster.
DM has said a number of times that they have a 6 to 8 year lead on the competition. It is easy to see that no matter how fast alternatives are being generated the process of drug development simply takes time. For commercial purposes I haven't figured out why a large pharma company hasn't swallowed RVX up years ago. 84 or 86 diseases that they could have a positive effect on, 10 years ago. What would that be worth to a company that had the funds to developed the science in a more efficient manor? My guess is 100s of billions over the next 20 years.
Apabetalone is on the cusp of flying or dying. We all hope that flying is the route we take. This is a 1st in class drug that will and has set the stag for many many more drug development initiatives in the future.
Having said that, since we are this close to the end of this trial with about 2499 molecules left to expand on, we are ripe for the picking.
All IMO, dyodd.
tada