I think ultimately the market will get this one right. Remember, there are many pharmas and biotechs who will want something like this, just to compete...  So 20k per treatment seems steep, yet it is only 2-3 treatments. Still, lots of room for profits $$$ as the acquiring pharma will produce very large batches. Shelf life and storate space shouldnt be a concern either, not for a pharma. That this will eventually work for all cancer indications will also factor in. 

ScienceFirst wrote: Thadeush ... Then why are you invested in TLT, knowing they only have a 2 doses treatment???

So you're saying that laparoscopy surgeries would then have never became mainstream.  Same for Lasik?  And what about arthoscopy surgeries, etc ...

It is always academic institutions like PMCC (UHN), McGill Health Center (McGill Univ.), private clinics, etc ... that lead the way with innovative solutions.  Such solutions, later on, end up in regional hospitals.  If you noticed, our Ph. 2 trial has been designed with a mix of academic institutions (mostly in Canada) and private clinics (in the US).

So there's no plot theories here.  Competition between big pharmas will push for treatments that are efficient.  It has always been like that and will always be.  Just like in any industry.  That's when one big pharma will grow a larger market over its competitors.  Insurers can also play a role as they can favor treatments that are less costly, at equal efficacy results.  Etc ...

When your market becomes larger, it can also compensate for lower price treatment, if that's ever the case.  We see this in many industries.  But the debate is not even there.  Keytruda probably costs more to manufacture than TLD1433.  We just don't know.  But if so, a big pharma would then have an advantage over the costs and volume.  And in oncology, efficacy data is key, as it can make a difference between life and death.

Would you opt for a 2 doses treatment of high efficacy or Keytruda (and its side-effects) and its many treatments?

Roche probably has a nice window of opportunity to shift Merck on its own turf.  If so, do you think they would skip it?  Do you think they would ask the permission to Merck??

They're all battling against each others for market shares.  As this represents B$$$ in revenues.  And upper management all have stock options.  So why would they let their competitors dominate???


RE:RE:2 weeks: It’s all it took for Merck to get AA
While I totally agree, the jaded side of me has never seen big Pharma see lower cost as a good thing. They do love their profits.