PortAlso keep in mind how the pharmaceutical market works in...

Port

Also keep in mind how the pharmaceutical market works in terms of the drug company's distribution network and distribution incentives. It is known that the drug company's pay huge forms of incentives (i.e. holidays, entertainment, 'conferences' in Hawaii, etc, and cash to o/s accounts for GP's, etc) under the guise of education and other reasons. Now this could be an in grained practice with the older and more established antiviral. Those incentives may have risen with competitive pressure from the other antivirals gaining market share and flaws being found in the more established drug. Those scientific flaws of the more established may be being overlooked by medicos whom are not fully motivated by patient care as opposed to obtaining 'incentives' for themselves.

On the other hand given the patent life of the drug making in-roads into the market, its manufacturer may not want to make that investment in 'marketing and distribution'. Why would you if you know it has 3 - 4 years left and there is a superior product about to supercede your product? And if you have been informed already that due to past relationships you are low down the list as a potential licencee of the new soon to be released product (if on the list at all). All assumptions by myself i might add.

Then you have the public hospital (health)sector and the education of the doctors within. I know of doctors in Aus emergency depts whom have never heard of the antiviral gaining profile and market share recently. And why? Well probably the main reason is due to the lack of the doctors own research capabilities mainly. Couple that with neeed not to research as they can only abide by Govt Dept instructive protocols and propaganda which also does not mention flaws in the more established drug. To mention flaws would admit lack of research by Govt agencies when they sought to procure, acquire and establish a much higher ratio in their stockpiles of the more established (flawed) drug than the antiviral now making market share in-roads due to overwhelming increasing scientific knoweldge of its benefits over the one formerly stockpiled most. To dramtically change policy would be to admit a mistake. One thing no Govt like to do and more so the public servant beuracrat within Govt Departments (there jobs are on the line). Govts also do not like to alarm their countries population that the Govt of the day does not have a stockpile of the most adequate antivirals for the situation and more so public safety in order. They also have to get rid of their stockpiles of the inferior antiviral or it becomes wasted public monies. Again regardless of their moral duty to the public.

Remember even the Aus Govt saying that the swine flu was not an serious issue when it raised its head and the news reported people dying on a daily basis. Then when they invest huge sums in a vaccine (with only six weeks of testing)the propaganda machine and health dept heads are now saying that we should all be vaccinated against this influenza that poses serious risk to the community.

Also the established antiviral was recommended for use in children and whom do parents, Govt's, etc want to protect first? As we should.

The antiviral now gaining market share was and is behind the eight ball, albeit the science community is waking up and trying to change opinion with its new finding. Past bias for the reasons stated above will be hard to counter. Hence, the stockpiling ratios will change, however, not rapidly. The retail market whilst medico's are provided incentives by large pharma will be a lot harder to crack if they do at all.

However, we know it is only a matter of time before the new drug supercedes all old forms of antiviral. Do not look backwards, look to the future. BTA's current cash in-flows are just a sideline for future developments.

cheers

cheers