It's half way through the year and the slot machine has spun up Biota on three of the four slots, the final slot is still spinning slowly and is determined by the resistance or not of I.V. peramivir to H274Y.
The science is clearly defined, H274Y is peramivir resistant, but Biocryst won't give up.
Could it be "BioCryst is advancing the clinical development of peramivir under terms of a $102.6 million, four-year contract from the HHS."? Could it be "Ten of the thirteen isolates of the H1N1 virus were tested for sensitivity to peramivir and all ten isolates were susceptible to peramivir." but before H274Y strains?
Could it be"“BioCryst is working diligently with government agencies to provide i.v. peramivir as a treatment option for an influenza emergency,” “With its parenteral route of administration, peramivir has the potential to help patients who may have difficulty with an oral or inhaled anti-viral medication. In addition, BioCryst is in negotiations ...to conduct a study of peramivir in a paediatric patient population.”?
Did Biota ever manage to argue the advantage of i.v. zanamivir half as well a BioCryst explained the use of an i.v antiviral?
BioCryst is fighting tooth and nail to support an argument for i.v. peramivir because of it's obvious value in a hospital, despite the fact it's a fifty /fifty chance peramivir will still be impractical because increasing the dose x6 in clinical trials probably still won't beat H274Y resistance. If it does it's taking Biocryst a very, very, very, long time proving it in the influenza trials (seasonal and individual swine flu tests), and you'd think that would be the first think they'd be jumping up and down about.
Compare this to the do die or die attitude of Biota management and GSK. We already know i.v.zanamivir kills H274Y dead (no resistance, kills ALL influenza A dead), we know i.v. zanamivir is safe, we know it fills the systemic defence gap, puffing Relenza stays in the lungs, and won't treat a body(systemic) infection, but an iv can. It fills the age defence gap, making it possible to treat ANY age with the right size injected dose, new born babies up to comatose 114 year olds.
We knew all this stuff about i.v.zanamivir and GSK and Biota management stopped testing it ten years ago.
Where is the logic, GSK dumped i.v zanamivir?
Where is the logic, GSK rejected Biota LANI compounds when they were successful in pre trials?
Maybe the rest of the BTA shareholders should wonder HOW MUCH MORE MONEY BTA could have earned if i.v.zanamivir and Biota's LANI had been available five years ago ?
So here we are again watching the slot machine.
Does it really matter if i.v.peramivir wins a slot and a minor prize? probably not.
Will the Biota management and GSK let the huge pile of dividend money spray out of the slot machine? probably not.
Biota management and GSK are in control, and by keeping BTA shareholders powerless most are being conditioned by management to accept their authority. Here's a blatant example,
Shareholders vetoed Peter Cook's bonus options, a reward from the Biota management to Peter Cook for, single- handedly destroying the lawcase against GSK, destroying the details of GSK's documented corruption, destroying one billion dollars difference in Biota's cash reserve, destroying existing cash reserve while announcing a corrupt and wasteful "Share Buyback for Peter Cook Scheme", to provide the share options for Peter Cook that punished the shareholders for vetoing the options.
What can you do about it? If your not asking the question it's already too late for you
BTA Price at posting:
$1.30 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
