Thank you for sharing the end points article - paints the AAV scene in some disarray and highlights the the lack of consistency between outcomes (positive and negative) across all phases, from pre-clinical, animal to humans. God’s design truly is intricate and complex.
Hopefully by Xmas PYC’s natural fleet of peptides will have proven a consistent linear outcome dosage relationship - with minimal risk / side effects - consistently across pre-clinical and animals for monogenic disease indications targeted by VP-001/02.
That should put us in good stead for FDA’s IND as VP-001 is administered via a series of intravenous injections (e.g. wet AMD, duration varies but on average monthly, until death) , the current gold standard for safety: PYC will have clear end points.
Then it’ll be is a matter of how quickly our platform can pump out similar ocular drugs, and whether we can branch out beyond monogenic disease indications - which VP-001 & VP-002 - and maybe beyond rare disease as our mode of administration lends itself.
Hopefully this all culminates in a re-rate of PYC, I do wonder why these confluence of factors are not being priced in? A healthy PYC share price allows us to self-fund (through intermittent share issuances at the right prices) the dual platform pipeline of new lead drugs (CNS etc.) until VP-001 hits the market in 2025 and generates revenue so we can hopefully buyback the shares we issues and more
(20min delay)