niman knows more than who, page-5

Dear Needle,
Good move to contact Biota management.

However the most immediate priority to manage the risk is for Biota to pressure GSK to ramp up production of Relenza and fast track the I/V (intravenous) Relenza trial.

There are both moral and commercial responsibilities in managing a company.

GSK as the licensee of Relenza has a responsibility to market the product industriously/diligently (hence the previous court case) - are they doing this? Biota has a responsibility to the shareholders to hold GSK accountable.

On the moral side, if there is clear evidence of risk then the companies(Biota and GSK)should respond accordingly. In this case the risk is (unusually) increased deaths if there is insufficient effective product available - your point!

Unfortunately there is likely to be a lag before commercial production of Lani commnces. Hence the need for continued reliance on Relenza.

Bringing morals into the discussion can be controversial - some HC posters have previously been criticised for perceived ambivalent attitudes to the future of Biota being dependant on the threat of Influenza pandemics.

It is legitimate to invest in an ethical company (Biota) that has a product(s) that has saved lives and will likely save many lives in the future.

Regards
Kangaroo1

PS the Tamiflu resistance gene H274Y is separate to the virulence gene D222G/N - but the rationale is correct