The clinical attrition of INX-189 post a 2.5 billion acquisition - are investors into life sciences really looking at where the buck is headed?

October 2012
Discussion initiated onGlobal Private Equity & Venture Capital group on Linkedin

http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=48513&type=member&item=156370875&qid=b8ecfd7b-c40b-491c-9e3d-f3f42e0780e4&trk=group_search_item_list-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmr_48513

Agreed BMS is no VC & acquisition of Inhibitex at 2.5 billion was more a survival tactic, but probably the outcome could be such for many investments into the life science (drug discovery). I believe the investor due-diligence of the investee should go beyond market projections of the pipeline candidates & a rational assessment of the druggability & clinical longevity of the pipeline candidates is what should interest the investor the most – not sure if this happens to the extent required?

Would love to hear what the investor community feels about this.

----------------------------------

PS: My love went totally unrequitted :-)... zero response

INX-189 clinical attrition - a call for re-look at single isomer strategy of Gilead?

October 2012

Discussion posted Pharmaceutical Discussion Group on LinkedIn

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/INX-189-clinical-attrition-call-38263.S.156348010?goback=%2Egde_38263_member_103345417

Is the purported toxicity of the non-active diastereoisomer in a P-chiral nucleotide prodrug (protide) a scientifically derived hypothesis OR is it merely a surmise from a coincidence that no active-isomer is found toxic till date? (considering very few 'single isomers' entered PI till date..)