Share
10,368 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 2813
clock Created with Sketch.
10/11/20
22:37
Share
Originally posted by MickeyMantle536:
↑
Good questions, but no one knows the answers yet. Pfizer is one of a number of potential vaccines being trialled. It certainly looks positive at this stage and the side effects (aches and fevers) are similar to other vaccine profiles, like the flu shot. However, it’s still early stage science and in particular Pfizer don’t know how long it protects against infection. EUA isn’t the silver bullet, it simply provides an opportunity to expedite the process of FDA approval. The mandate is broad so it supports all potential drugs that could assist with the pandemic, including those which treat SAARDS. All the major pharmaceutical companies are still pushing forward on their trials, J&J, AstraZeneca and Moderna for example. It’s certainly not a “winner takes all” scenario. That said, I think you’re correct that these are two different potential drugs entirely. IHL-675A is being developed to treat SAARDS not vaccinate against COVID. SAARDS and other related sepsis conditions still represent a multiple billion dollar unmet need, even if COVID didn’t exist. And the Pfizer vaccine does not compete with IHL-675A. I won’t be surprised if big pharma knock on IHL’s door if the results continue to demonstrate efficacy. No hyperbole either as that’s a well worn path for small biotech companies, hence the significant upside that exists for shareholders IMO. Lots to like, that’s for certain.
Expand
Thanks MM, appreciate your feedback! There is absolutely still a need for IHL-675A irrespective of which of these vaccines work, no argument there. I was talking specifically with reference to EUA and the possibility of it being granted for IHL-675A - as you mentioned, there can be more than one winner here so I agree that EUA could still be viable for IHL-675A but not a show stopper if we don't get it. It just means that we'd then go down the well worn path of the traditional FDA application. Exciting times ahead