@BAMBossie81 If they do not sell, it’s a 5x in a few years from current prices. But that scenario is highly unlikely if you look at the history of UC drugs being bought out. 5% dilution doesn’t mean anything, it’s all negotiation leverage and stability.
$ABVX is a good buy at these levels. Looking at it through biological mechanisms, I think they got very unlucky with the statistics. Still could be one of the best selling drugs of all time. Let’s not forget about safety concerns with JAK inhibitors.
@crisprspace@PrimeMedicine They have been trying to get deals for years now. I am not sure what the hold up is; considering their tech and range of indications they can solve. Kinda put salt on the wound when tessera got a deal before prime 🫠. Hopefully they get a favorable arbitration in the meantime.
@GeneInvesting data on their in vivo gene editing drug for hep-b. I haven’t looked into it much or know much about their tech, but it seems like a step up for hep-b.
@GeneInvesting @DickMedChem I guess it’s a product that the general public would possibly benefit from. But, I think it will make its case in rare diseases first and a very gradual transition to more general use cases.
@Morty_Soley@intelliatx I have confidence in the management in terms of r&d. Their team has some of the brightest minds in the industry. However, I do agree that the company can do a much better job in raising capital. On the bright side, we now have cash runway for close to a year of hae sales.
@MartinShkreli@kimmonismus@cremieuxrecueil keep in mind gene therapy and gene editing is vastly different. most gene therapies add new genetic material outside of the chromosome whereas crispr knocks out or replaces the faulty gene. I’m a bit skeptical on this use case, but for something like hae or aatd it works well.