email reply from phylogica management, page-2

Thanks Tony,

Now you are getting some good comments from Management about programs going on in the company. These are really the first responses I have seen that give any indication/detail as to PYC's actual thought process, not shown in their slide decks.

The fact that they spent so much time responding to my comments in such detail, I think says I am right on most of my points, although they can't admit it (imo).

Look at their responses. They say they disagree but then concede that none of those early CPPs actually made it to market (how is that not a failure?), but I of course agree with what he says about alot of targets are currently undrugable, anyone would agree with that, and there is always a place for new CPPs if they can be shown to work effectively in humans, and I have said PYC has a good chance at doing just that.

On Tat, they are still wrong that it is endosomal, there a few professors who still believe this, but more and more do not, as since they are nonspecific and associate with negatively charged membranes, undoubtedly some will be carried into endosomal pathway, but that does not appear to major route for actual delivery of a substance. But that is a small point, that we can agree to disagree on.

On CD40-CD40L, I may have been a little harsh with "all failed", but my meaning was none have become drugs and they were all dropped, which PYC concedes. The few that still believed in inhibiting this interaction basically all started over. The fact remains BigPharma left.

The fact that PYC can only highlight Biogen as a company still working on this interaction shows that BigPharma has dropped it. As I said in my post, if you can take it into humans and prove that inhibiting CD40-CD40L doesn't suffer from the side effects of the past, then BigPharma would be really interested, of course. Mouse data alone is not going to do it.

Of course they would outright reject the fact that CD40-CD40L is a viable target.

Nasal delivery peptide is their therapeutic path? Oh boy, that won't take any time to do.

Again, much thanks Tony, I got a good laugh out of this and their responses ((didn't know you would send the whole email since some of my statements were a little too direct for them ever to agree with ((such as not touching CD40-CD40L with a ten foot pole...of course someone is willing to do that, since you have professors who have invested the majority of their scientific careers pushing this interaction as therapeutic, can't give up or can't get grants)), but I think these replies should be really helpful for alot of people on this message board to get an understanding of what they are thinking. I am not going to dissect their statements line-by-line, since in science as well as drug development, their are often areas that people do not agree on what the science and data indicate.