Ann: Collaboration Agreement - siRNA delivery, page-17

A few questions: How many FDA-approved drugs are nanoparticles? How many drugs have Phylogica or Professor Peer put into the clinic? How much is the cost of goods for a nanoparticle targeted to a non-ocular disease? Most likely in the range of AAV therapies, where the cost of a facility to manufacture the vector at Phase 1 through commercial is in excess of $100M, and where treatment per patient is currently estimated to be a commercially unviable ~$3M. What has Phylogica got to offer that will allow it to get past the liver? Maybe the magical Generation 2, about which I’m not holding my breath.

Anyway, it would be nice to see some real data for a change (with numbers, statistics, etc. you know, the sort of stuff that real scientists insist upon). With what we’re shown, a pharma company such as mine wouldn’t touch this with a bargepole, simply because there’s too much smoke and mirrors. I thoroughly understand why they’re unable to get real deals with upfronts and milestones - their data quality just isn’t good enough. Why would Pfizer, Amgen etc. spend good money when there are so many other, established places to spend it? I put money into technologies for a living, I wouldn’t go to my boss with this.

And so, we’re at 2.3 cents, an outstanding loss of value, so many missed opportunities, and lack of leadership at all levels. (to be transparent, I only come here because I’m looking for next generation technologies, so I’m not strictly part of the “we’re”). On the one hand, the share price has been lower, and there are those here that believe that glory is just around the corner. I sincerely hope so, because Phylogica has a good technology and good scientists (lions led by donkeys). On the other, if this continues, a downward death spiral is the best we can expect. My advice to the hard-working scientists – update your resumes, because Perth is a small place with limited opportunities.