RE:Infectious Diseases PipelineTexasTea20 wrote: Just curious if anyone is as interested in the go-forward strategy with regards to infectious diseases as I am. Been doing a little digging... think there is way more there than folks realize.
idk, my background in in infectious disease so I should be a huge fan of the idea but unfortunately its considered a bit of a backwater. IMV changed thier name to specifcally get away from the idea that they were a traditional (ie infectious disease) vaccine company, I understood that. Some spaces are hot, infectious disease is not one of them, unfortunately it doesnt automatically attract investors. Doesnt mean you cant make money, HPV vaccine was massive, and companies are hard at work in the space. I worked for a biotech in th ID space that sold itself to a big pharma, thats where I got my cash for investing. I think for IMV putting the full package together is easier with their lead products than it would be with an ID product but that doesnt mean its impossible.
Specifically on IMV's pipeline
RSV - you see this in the pipeline of many vaccine companies, its a perrenial scientific/clinical problem, the solution has been elusive. Who knows if IMV is the solution.
Malaria - I actually worked on malaria vaccines. At the biotech that owned a vlp tech and had it 'in their pipeline' I wasnt allowed to work on it because it had no clear commercial pathway, when the biotech failed and the tech (and me) shifted to an academic setting I was able to start the project. Revenue is difficult, when pharma get involved typically its seen more like charity (solving a human problem) rather than a money earner so its not a clear path in terms of value, makes better PR sense than business sense unfortunately that seems to be the prevailing wisedom.