research reports and media, page-745

Thanks for the discussion everyone. This was also one that I was also concerned about, but had temporarily been relieved after hearing from my doctor. But I also have not heard enough to fully put that to rest (eg alot of doubts have been raised about whether it is true that stem cells arent very effective on older, sicker patients, and I have not seen anything that definitively puts this to rest for GID Bio's specific treatment). Maybe because my background is in risk, so I am always on the look out for risks. Or maybe its just because half my portfolio value is in this stock and it is not primarily due to capital gains

I agree with sunny coast that there will always be competition and the market is big enough for everyone. Knowing of the threats to the business case does help though. Firstly, we need to have some competitive advantages, otherwise no one would use iPPS. Mozzarc and Teddy raised some excellent points in the other threads which gives me comfort that Tanezumab will be almost fully dominated by iPPS, despite their possible first-to-market advantage. Secondly, the existence of alternatives will have an impact of restricting the range of prices that we can viably charge (although I think our cost advantage is likely so likely this will not be a huge problem for us). Thirdly, the reason for a high concentration in PAR for many of us is due to what we think is the huge asymmetric upside. If this upside was found to be limited, I would likely rebalance my portfolio into something that remains high but not at 50%.

So far, it looks like high cost of stem cell therapy is the main advantage we have, even if GID works, and possibly the lack of across the board applicability, although this is to be further verified.

i did a quick look at GID Bio (partly to see whether to hedge my risks by buying into them too), but they don't appear to be listed on any exchange. I also sent some questions out to them. Will report back if I get anything.