Member Info for YoungHarry

Very much agree with your views as to why IMM did not partner. Push back from pharma re Cephalon's use of the wrong excipient and their path dependency on the then mainstream, and yet to fail, MoA. Having had a one to one chat with the congenial Robert Zimmer, I imagine that if any pharma had initiated negotiations then they would have quickly discouraged by his planet sized valuations, his dream being to turn IMM into billion $ biotech as according to him all such biotechs had made it by retaining ownership of their lead drug. It would appear that his expectations of price were also a barrier to progress with fund raising. The breakthrough on pricing coincided with the arrival of TM and the preclinical data that identified the potential application of P140 to other autoimmune indications. As we now know, the go it alone strategy failed. No doubt IMM are now giving closer attention to the merits / necessity of partnering (which could make best use of the PIII data, reformulate and check dosing if required, game the second trial design and fund scale). In parallel, the failure presents pharma with an opportunity to acquire an interest in the P140 platform at a realistic price.

The posts shows that through PIII study design it was possible to manage the use of immunosuppressants and thereby reduce placebo response rates. This suggests that big pharma are wise to gaming trial design as well as size to get drugs over the line. So a drug with a good safety profile + interesting bio marker patient data + street smart big pharma looks more than ever the way this will go Accordingly the drug , it draws out a signgngwhat is a complex n of the PIII trial and hence cthat is water under the bridge, the point is that the drug gu