As AHZ investors it's probably a pretty safe bet to forget about most other biotechs listed on the ASX which are still clinging onto the old bricks-and-mortar R&D infrastructure as these companies largely represent the majority of past, present, and future failures that ImQE was alluding to the other day.
Fwiw, I was posting about ADAPT Cardiocel technologies well before Allied Healthcare (Admedus) were even listed on the ASX back in 2011 so over time I've become reasonably acquainted with the science behind these technology platforms, and I have nothing but praise for the current Board and their ability to commercialise the former work developed by Celxcel and bioMD. There is no doubt that Cardiocel is an improved offering over current treatment interventions which are also considered to be evidence-based, but take-up rates and subsequent revenues to Admedus may still be a little slower than we would like to think, regardless of how special it may be. Of course if AHZ happened to stumble upon a partner with a couple of hundred million marketing dollars to spare, then my opinion would change pretty fast.
To understand new product innovation relative to competition and profitability, I think it's important to examine its impact on the structure of each industry. Within the biotech sector, or more specifically if you like, the field of vaccines, competition has been driven by 3 major factors for over 150 years; (perhaps *200 in Prof Frazer's opinion)
1.) Safety
2.) Efficacy
3.) Cost
On first impression anyone will be quick to consider this as only stating the obvious because put simply, it really is, however when weighing up clinical data available for intra-dermal delivery options such as the Nanopatch that I would have to submit, have already been achieved with HPV and HSV-2 vaccines from Prof. Frazer's lab against those same 3 competitive forces above, the only thing really left to comment on is (to use your favorite analogy) why the hell are we still putting the cart before the horse after one and a half centuries of getting it so bloody wrong?
Remember, our good Professor is the expert in the field of immunology, not skin science - these are completely separate disciplines so we can't lay any blame on his extraordinary achievements. Fortunately a man of his caliber as a respected world authority within his own chosen field, Prof Frazer already acknowledges that the development of vaccines have already reached there full potential. Now we only need to work out where to actually deliver them... And that is more simple said than done, believe me.
However, just to put things in perspective here, the original Gardasil HPV Vaccine that Admedus and its inventor, Prof. Frazer are now working on to 'improve' is already costing Australian's $460 (free to 12-13 y/o boys and girls). However, delivering 150 times less the current dose of the same vaccine via a Nanopatch will not only make it statistically more efficacious and substantially more compliant for the patient, but could also reduce the Australian price tag from $460.00 down to only $3.06c without having any impact whatsoever to Merck's bottom line - or +10,000% profit margin if you really wish to know.
I'll leave you with a couple of words from some people who certainly may know a little bit more than the long term 'cart before the horse' conformist plebs like you and I.
Just because the market still fails to factor in any value, don't neglect the very real potential of Admedus Vaccines
(20min delay)