email reply from phylogica management, page-7

What I got a laugh about Gateman was that Tony actually sent them my entire post to respond to. If I knew he was going to send them my post, I would have asked better questions.

There responses weren't crap. I guess written by Paul. There are strong CPP believers and then their are those who are still a bit more skeptical, after seeing numerous companies over the years say that CPPs are the holy grail of drug delivery (CPPs have been suggested for siRNA, oligos, gene silencing, peptides, small molecules, a long long list of therapeutics that could not be delivered functionally by themselves, so people pushed that CPPs could save all these technologies. Hasn't been that simple. But PYCs believes in CPPs and I like their ideas, although they are likely targeting LRP1, FcRn, Transferring Receptor, these well known targeting molecules for getting into BBB in Roche deal (there are no secrets here, everyone knows this, because almost every pharma has some small programs going on around those targets, but that is a good thing for Pyc). As they confirmed, their CPPs for cell selective delivery are just targeting membrane receptors expressed specifically on those cell types. Conceptually nothing new, the question is whether the phylomer/peptide is a better targeting/delivery carrier (vector) than the other technologies out there, and only time will tell on that.

For one last comment, cause I really have spent too much time on this message board the past few days, is that I will give my translation of what I see them saying about their internal CD40-CD40L program. PYC said is has been discussing this program with Pharma and they are interested in licensing the program, but as part of the discussions they have been provided "benchmarks" required to compete with the new generation of anti-CD40L therapies. What that means, imo, is that Pharma is only interested in licensing the program if PYC can show that their phylomers are better than the current therapies (already in Phase I/II trials). Knowing that the mouse models are not good models for testing therapies against CD40-CD40L, then what does those benchmarks look like?? Has to be better efficacy or less side effects, and I don't know how you show that without any human testing? Even if you didn't need human testing, which is still hard for me to believe, they would need PK data, delivery/formulation data to show that their phylomer is oral available or has a longer half-life then the Pegylated anti-CD40L Fab. Maybe they just plan to pegylate it themselves and do the pk data? Regardless, in business speak, they have been given the equivalent response of "we need alot more data and a lot more validation before we would consider discussing any license" from Pharma, so PYC shareholders should't expect to see this program licensed out at anytime soon.