|
Post by mnholdem on May 29, 2017 8:13:47 GMT -5
True. The excerpt above mentions UAE health ministry's desire to attract wealthy UAE nationists and expatriots who have traditionally travelled abroad for serious health care. Whichever middle eastern country approves Afrezza will, for an indeterminate length of time, become the only healthcare system in the region that offers an alternative to insulin injections.
It's also true that the Afrezza-to-UAE shipping quote, because it originated from the point of destination rather than the U.S., is what gave this rumor its legs. That point made, near-term sales of Afrezza in the UAE remains a rumor with no basis in fact. Medical articles originating from physicians in the region carry more credence, IMO, as does the UAE's relatively short drug approval process.
|
|
|
Post by sportsrancho on May 29, 2017 8:31:58 GMT -5
Why is everybody convinced that the unidentified Middle Eastern country is the UAE given that the company has not even hinted at that? Given the history of the company, wouldn't Israel be a more likely candidate than UAE? Image from battellemedia.com/media/images/twitter-money.png. This is why everyone's convinced:-))
|
|
|
Post by promann on May 29, 2017 8:47:27 GMT -5
Why is everybody convinced that the unidentified Middle Eastern country is the UAE given that the company has not even hinted at that? Given the history of the company, wouldn't Israel be a more likely candidate than UAE? Image from battellemedia.com/media/images/twitter-money.png. Ah yes I knew it..
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on May 29, 2017 12:39:12 GMT -5
Matt said, "Our international expansion focuses on countries which have a less prolonged regulatory pathway given our US FDA approval. We are preparing filings for Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Australia, MENA, and the UAE. We are also evaluating EMA and other regions." At the last call he said, "I can announce today that we are actually on file in one new listed country and are in later stage negotiations in number of different jurisdictions, and you'll see announcement of that one near-term. But as this typical with our past practices, we cannot to make these announcements till we actually get the approvals or sign the agreement, so stay tuned on that front as well." brotherm1 says: Brazil has a population of approx 208 million (all under national health care) Canada 36 million (national health care) Mexico 127 million (national health care to 51 million) Australia 24 million MENA (about 381 million but over about 23 countries) UAE 9 million (national health care) Which one might we see an announcement about? I vote for Domestic script expansion" 299 scripts divided by "X" million per month in cash burn = an expensive script. LOL - sorry I'm just a tad punchy this morning.
|
|
|
Post by lakers on May 29, 2017 12:57:25 GMT -5
It's easier to deduce if you can figure out who is not next this year. It wouldn't take long. This board has tremendously resourceful people. I will start first. You can rule out Israel this year b/c the national inclusion is determined near the end of each year to be effective in Jan next year. I posted an article how Israel health care work before. You can dig it up. The rich Gulf countries are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Also ruled out this year are NA from MENA. UAE is part of MENA which is synonymous with Greater Middle East. Matt Inadvertently called it out twice. Note that Israel belongs to MENA as well. But it didn't get called out. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MENAAnother hint is perusing the next 2 countries Pfizer shipped Exubera or got approval for after the U.S. Just check the date. They are public info.
|
|
|
Post by nylefty on May 29, 2017 13:39:09 GMT -5
Another hint is perusing the next 2 countries Pfizer shipped Exubera or got approval for after the U.S. Just check the date. They are public info. From a 2006 PR: Exubera is the first insulin, and first ever biotechnology-based medicine to treat a systemic disorder, that can be administered without an injection. It is the only inhaled insulin to be approved for use in clinical practice in the European Union, U.S. , Brazil and Mexico, and it is pending approval in several other countries...Exubera is currently available in the U.S., United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany.ir.nektar.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=210848
|
|
|
Post by lakers on May 29, 2017 13:54:23 GMT -5
Inhaled insulin will relieve diabetics Those living with diabetes in the UAE will soon be able to treat the condition using inhaled insulin instead of injections, a Ministry of Health official said on Monday. By Abbas Al Lawati, Staff Reporter 00:00 January 16, 2007 Dubai: Those living with diabetes in the UAE will soon be able to treat the condition using inhaled insulin instead of injections, a Ministry of Health official said on Monday. Dr Humaid Al Shamsi, Assistant Undersecretary of Pharmacies and Supplies at the Ministry of Health, told Gulf News that the powder form of the diabetes treatment has been approved in the UAE and could be on the shelves soon. "The registration process is ongoing but it has been approved," he said. The treatment is expected to benefit those with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Dr Ali Al Sayed, director of Pharmaceutical Services at the Department of Health and Medical Services, said that an order for the inhaler had already been placed by the department and a shipment is expected by July. "We are however negotiating to have it shipped earlier, perhaps by March," he said. Dr Al Sayed said that he was not authorised to reveal the price of the inhaler but could say that it would be 'inexpensive' and comparable to the price of the injection treatment, stressing the significance of the new treatment in easing the process of blood sugar level stabilisation for diabetics. Pfizer, the pharmaceutical company that has developed the powder treatment, has called it 'one of the biggest steps forward since the discovery of insulin.' A sales executive at Ibn Sina pharmacy in Dubai said that the treatment was expected to appear on the shelves 'within six months'. m.gulfnews.com/inhaled-insulin-will-relieve-diabetics-1.155197
|
|
|
Post by lakers on May 29, 2017 14:06:18 GMT -5
The following is the reason Mnkd has kept Afrezza price up to grease the skid for international expansion while anticipating price reduction overseas. Economy of scale also plays a role here. pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC2099527/Why is Exubera being withdrawn? Clifford J Bailey, professor in clinical science and head of diabetes research1 and Anthony H Barnett, professor of medicine and clinical director of diabetes and endocrinology2 Author information On 18 October Pfizer announced that it would withdraw the first inhaled insulin, Exubera, from the market, as sales were too low. In January 2006 Pfizer bought the worldwide rights to Exubera from Sanofi-Aventis for $1.3bn (£0.6bn; €0.9bn), and in August 2006 the product was introduced in Britain. In the first nine months of 2007, worldwide sales of Exubera amounted to $12m, rather short of its projected $2bn blockbuster status. Instead it will cost Pfizer an estimated $2.8bn to “write it off.” So why were sales of Exubera so far below expectations? Was it that: Labelling and national guidance were too restrictive? Pfizer did not persist long enough for the market to open up? The cost was too high? The inhalation device was less convenient than anticipated? The dose equivalence was confusing or inaccurate? Doubts lingered over its long term safety? Inhaled insulin is suitable for meal bolus insulin but not basal insulin doses? Temporary cough can be irritating? None, some, or all of the above? Exubera's withdrawal has implications for the companies that make the insulin and the inhalers, as well as Nektar Therapeutics, which developed the inhaler and retains a stake in the product. Nektar has yet to announce how it will proceed. Several other companies have inhaled insulin products in development, including Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and the MannKind Corporation, and it is not yet clear how the withdrawal will affect these programmes, although the companies have said they intend to continue. In principle the lungs offer several opportunities for the delivery of peptides. Their large surface area aids rapid absorption, administration is painless, and trial participants who use Exubera have reported a high level of satisfaction and acceptability.1 2 3 4 However, the inhaled route is haunted by several unknowns. Could a high concentration of insulin in the lungs bind it to insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptors, influence proliferation, increase the amount of connective tissue, reduce lung compliance, and reduce the rate of gaseous exchange? Is the required monitoring of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) accurate enough and reproducible for safety purposes? At an additional cost of about £500 per patient per year, is the low bioavailability of inhaled insulin an extravagance? Despite these concerns, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency were sufficiently satisfied about the product's safety to grant a licence, although with some important exclusions (such as cigarette smokers, people with major pulmonary disease, and children) and a requirement for pulmonary function testing before patients started Exubera and then at intervals afterwards. We believe this to be the first time that a licensed product for managing a common chronic disease has been withdrawn from the market so quickly for what would seem to be purely economic reasons. Despite any criticisms that might be levelled at Pfizer's marketing strategy, and practical difficulties with the device itself, it seems that restrictive guidelines may have contributed to the poor sales. In its preliminary consultation document the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not recommend the use of Exubera at all (despite accepting the evidence that patients were more satisfied with it than injected insulin), saying that cost effectiveness had not been shown. After comments from groups such as Diabetes UK, the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, and various nurses' organisations, NICE softened its attitude and recommended use of Exubera, but only in patients with a true needle phobia or where there were major needle site problems.5 The conclusions of NICE and similar bodies recommending Exubera only in restricted cases should send a warning to drug companies that their development programmes should look beyond what is needed to gain a licence: their studies may have to demonstrate cost effectiveness of the product and use in “real life” clinical practice situations. This may not be easy in the case of drugs for chronic diseases, given that hard data on outcomes are unlikely to be available by the time of the launch, so that surrogate end points may still be needed to demonstrate cost utility. NICE guidance and labelling restrictions made it almost impossible for clinicians to prescribe Exubera to many UK patients who might have benefited from this new technology, including people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes who refused to start insulin treatment because they did not want to inject (rather than those with true needle phobia) and those with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who needed to intensify insulin treatment to improve control but would not do so because it would mean more injections. What do we do about our patients who already take inhaled insulin? One of us (AHB) runs an inhaled insulin clinic for patients who fulfil the NICE criteria. The response among those who have been prescribed Exubera has been almost universally positive. What are we to tell them? The lifeline that they have been offered and have taken up has now been cruelly removed, and they will have to wait at least two years for alternative products to appear. We also have several patients who have been promised access to this new technology and who now have to be told that it is no longer available. Perhaps more worrying, however—if the decision on Exubera is indeed solely economic (as seems to be the case)—is that drug companies may now be less inclined to speculate in the development of new products unless there is greater assurance over reimbursement. As a result the industry may reduce its commitment to research and development of novel compounds and concentrate in other areas, such as “me too” products. The appetite to invent and develop novel treatments may be suppressed. This is in nobody's interest, least of all our patients'. A licensed product for managing a common chronic disease has been withdrawn from the market for what would seem to be purely economic reasons.
|
|
|
Post by peppy on May 29, 2017 14:37:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakers on May 29, 2017 15:15:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lakers on May 29, 2017 18:53:40 GMT -5
Insulin Min purchase part of CTO with AMPH revealed in AMPH's filing which corroborated significant international expansion. Expanding on this with a look at Amphastar SEC filings: In November 2016, the Company amended the Supply Agreement with MannKind, whereby MannKind's aggregate total commitment of RHI API under the Supply Agreement has not been reduced; however, the annual minimum purchase commitments of RHI API under the Supply Agreement have been modified and extended through 2023, which timeframe had previously lapsed after calendar year 2019. Specifically, the minimum annual purchase commitment in calendar year 2016 has been cancelled, and the minimum annual purchase commitments in calendar years 2017 through 2023 have been modified to be €2.7 million ($3,019,100) of insulin in the fourth quarter of 2017, €8.9 million ($9,951,847) in 2018, €11.6 million ($12,970,946) in 2019, €15.5 million ($17,331,868) in 2020 and in 2021, and €19.4 ($21,692,789) million in 2022 and in 2023. MannKind may request to purchase additional quantities of RHI API in excess of its annual minimum purchase commitments. The Supply Agreement Amendment also shortened the required expiry dates for RHI API delivered to MannKind pursuant to the Supply Agreement, (ii) modified the timing of MannKind's payment for the minimum annual purchase commitment in calendar year 2017, and (NASDAQ:III) added a pre-payment requirement for purchases of RHI API by MannKind in calendar years 2017 and 2018. The amendment can be renewed for additional, successive two-year terms upon 12 months' written notice, given prior to the end of the initial term or any additional two-year term. Concurrently with the amendment of the Supply Agreement, the Company amended the Option Agreement with MannKind, whereby the amendment to the Option Agreement extends the timing for payment of the capacity cancellation fee for 2017 and decreases the amounts payable as capacity cancellation fees for 2018 and 2019 in the event MannKind fails to exercise its minimum annual purchase option for any given year. The Company recognized the cancellation fee for 2017 of $1.5 million in net revenues in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016, and subsequently collected on this receivable. In addition to, and in consideration of the amended timeframe and other amendments contained in the amendment to the Supply Agreement in the amendment to the Option Agreement, the Supply Agreement Amendment provided the Company right of first refusal to participate in the development and commercialization of Afrezza ® in China through a collaborative arrangement. seekingalpha.com/instablog/175233-spencer-osborne/4992182-mannkind-contract-amphastar6.5 Right of First Refusal in China. In consideration of the amendments contained in this Second Amendment and in the Option Amendment, MannKind hereby grants Amphastar the right of first refusal to participate in the development and commercialization of Afrezza in China through a collaborative arrangement. Specifically, Amphastar and MannKind agree that MannKind will not commence the process of obtaining approval of Afrezza in China without first providing Amphastar with (NYSE:I) at least ninety (90) days prior written notice of MannKind's intention to commence the process of obtaining approval of Afrezza in China, and (ii) if Amphastar confirms its interest in collaborating in the development or commercialization of Afrezza in China in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of MannKind's notice, then the Parties shall reserve sixty (60) days to negotiate in good faith the terms of such a collaborative arrangement for Afrezza in China. In the event that the Parties are unable to agree on commercial terms for a collaborative agreement after the sixty (60) day negotiation period, then MannKind shall have the right to negotiate a collaborative agreement with another party ("Competing Terms"). MannKind shall present the Competing Terms to Amphastar in writing, and within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Competing Terms, Amphastar shall have the option to either decline to match the Competing Terms, or (ii) agree to match the same Competing Terms and enter into a collaborative agreement with MannKind in China. The existence of this protects both sides. It gives Amphastar the ability to be the partner in China. It helps MannKind ensure a stronger deal from a potential suitor. Cost of Goods Sold would be lower in Q1, Q2, and Q3 of this year because there is no insulin buy.
|
|
|
Post by brotherm1 on May 29, 2017 19:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on May 29, 2017 19:56:44 GMT -5
The following is the reason Mnkd has kept Afrezza price up to grease the skid for international expansion while anticipating price reduction overseas. Economy of scale also plays a role here. pubmedcentralcanada.ca/pmcc/articles/PMC2099527/Why is Exubera being withdrawn? Clifford J Bailey, professor in clinical science and head of diabetes research1 and Anthony H Barnett, professor of medicine and clinical director of diabetes and endocrinology2 Author information On 18 October Pfizer announced that it would withdraw the first inhaled insulin, Exubera, from the market, as sales were too low. In January 2006 Pfizer bought the worldwide rights to Exubera from Sanofi-Aventis for $1.3bn (£0.6bn; €0.9bn), and in August 2006 the product was introduced in Britain. In the first nine months of 2007, worldwide sales of Exubera amounted to $12m, rather short of its projected $2bn blockbuster status. Instead it will cost Pfizer an estimated $2.8bn to “write it off.” So why were sales of Exubera so far below expectations? Was it that: Labelling and national guidance were too restrictive? Pfizer did not persist long enough for the market to open up? The cost was too high? The inhalation device was less convenient than anticipated? The dose equivalence was confusing or inaccurate? Doubts lingered over its long term safety? Inhaled insulin is suitable for meal bolus insulin but not basal insulin doses? Temporary cough can be irritating? None, some, or all of the above? Exubera's withdrawal has implications for the companies that make the insulin and the inhalers, as well as Nektar Therapeutics, which developed the inhaler and retains a stake in the product. Nektar has yet to announce how it will proceed. Several other companies have inhaled insulin products in development, including Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and the MannKind Corporation, and it is not yet clear how the withdrawal will affect these programmes, although the companies have said they intend to continue. In principle the lungs offer several opportunities for the delivery of peptides. Their large surface area aids rapid absorption, administration is painless, and trial participants who use Exubera have reported a high level of satisfaction and acceptability.1 2 3 4 However, the inhaled route is haunted by several unknowns. Could a high concentration of insulin in the lungs bind it to insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) receptors, influence proliferation, increase the amount of connective tissue, reduce lung compliance, and reduce the rate of gaseous exchange? Is the required monitoring of forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) accurate enough and reproducible for safety purposes? At an additional cost of about £500 per patient per year, is the low bioavailability of inhaled insulin an extravagance? Despite these concerns, the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency were sufficiently satisfied about the product's safety to grant a licence, although with some important exclusions (such as cigarette smokers, people with major pulmonary disease, and children) and a requirement for pulmonary function testing before patients started Exubera and then at intervals afterwards. We believe this to be the first time that a licensed product for managing a common chronic disease has been withdrawn from the market so quickly for what would seem to be purely economic reasons. Despite any criticisms that might be levelled at Pfizer's marketing strategy, and practical difficulties with the device itself, it seems that restrictive guidelines may have contributed to the poor sales. In its preliminary consultation document the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) did not recommend the use of Exubera at all (despite accepting the evidence that patients were more satisfied with it than injected insulin), saying that cost effectiveness had not been shown. After comments from groups such as Diabetes UK, the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, and various nurses' organisations, NICE softened its attitude and recommended use of Exubera, but only in patients with a true needle phobia or where there were major needle site problems.5 The conclusions of NICE and similar bodies recommending Exubera only in restricted cases should send a warning to drug companies that their development programmes should look beyond what is needed to gain a licence: their studies may have to demonstrate cost effectiveness of the product and use in “real life” clinical practice situations. This may not be easy in the case of drugs for chronic diseases, given that hard data on outcomes are unlikely to be available by the time of the launch, so that surrogate end points may still be needed to demonstrate cost utility. NICE guidance and labelling restrictions made it almost impossible for clinicians to prescribe Exubera to many UK patients who might have benefited from this new technology, including people with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes who refused to start insulin treatment because they did not want to inject (rather than those with true needle phobia) and those with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who needed to intensify insulin treatment to improve control but would not do so because it would mean more injections. What do we do about our patients who already take inhaled insulin? One of us (AHB) runs an inhaled insulin clinic for patients who fulfil the NICE criteria. The response among those who have been prescribed Exubera has been almost universally positive. What are we to tell them? The lifeline that they have been offered and have taken up has now been cruelly removed, and they will have to wait at least two years for alternative products to appear. We also have several patients who have been promised access to this new technology and who now have to be told that it is no longer available. Perhaps more worrying, however—if the decision on Exubera is indeed solely economic (as seems to be the case)—is that drug companies may now be less inclined to speculate in the development of new products unless there is greater assurance over reimbursement. As a result the industry may reduce its commitment to research and development of novel compounds and concentrate in other areas, such as “me too” products. The appetite to invent and develop novel treatments may be suppressed. This is in nobody's interest, least of all our patients'. A licensed product for managing a common chronic disease has been withdrawn from the market for what would seem to be purely economic reasons. Thanks for adding some very informative posts. I had the opportunity to spend some time will the lead chemist on Exubera. No surprise he is no longer working for Pfizer. When I asked what were the "reasonS" Exubera was pulled he gave me one "afrezza". His take on things was that Pfizer thought afrezza was so good it would over night take the market Exubera was trying to make. If he is correct Pfizer and the other Big Pharma have been closely watching afrezza, understand its pharmakinetics and what a game changer it is and doing everything they can to stop it. He told me point blank no one thought MNKD would continue after Pfizer put out the cancer FUD. He was still in shock MNKD and afrezza are still going. I asked what were the chances of Exubera causing cancer. His answer was ZERO. I ask him what the chances were of afrezza causing cancer and his answer was "less than ZERO". Now its up to Matt and Mike to square away funding because if Big Pharma was worried 5 years ago and have thrown the kitchen sink at MNKD and they are still going, what are they thinking now as CGMs start to emerge and PWD meal time numbers can no longer be hidden? IMO, one of them is going to blink soon.
|
|
|
Post by deaner3 on May 29, 2017 20:00:31 GMT -5
Absolutely. One of them will blink and make a big offer. Which one is going to get the golden goose though and which will be left behind.
|
|
|
Post by sayhey24 on May 29, 2017 20:18:47 GMT -5
Insulin Min purchase part of CTO with AMPH revealed in AMPH's filing which corroborated significant international expansion. Expanding on this with a look at Amphastar SEC filings: In November 2016, the Company amended the Supply Agreement with MannKind, whereby MannKind's aggregate total commitment of RHI API under the Supply Agreement has not been reduced; however, the annual minimum purchase commitments of RHI API under the Supply Agreement have been modified and extended through 2023, which timeframe had previously lapsed after calendar year 2019. Specifically, the minimum annual purchase commitment in calendar year 2016 has been cancelled, and the minimum annual purchase commitments in calendar years 2017 through 2023 have been modified to be €2.7 million ($3,019,100) of insulin in the fourth quarter of 2017, €8.9 million ($9,951,847) in 2018, €11.6 million ($12,970,946) in 2019, €15.5 million ($17,331,868) in 2020 and in 2021, and €19.4 ($21,692,789) million in 2022 and in 2023. MannKind may request to purchase additional quantities of RHI API in excess of its annual minimum purchase commitments. The Supply Agreement Amendment also shortened the required expiry dates for RHI API delivered to MannKind pursuant to the Supply Agreement, (ii) modified the timing of MannKind's payment for the minimum annual purchase commitment in calendar year 2017, and (NASDAQ:III) added a pre-payment requirement for purchases of RHI API by MannKind in calendar years 2017 and 2018. The amendment can be renewed for additional, successive two-year terms upon 12 months' written notice, given prior to the end of the initial term or any additional two-year term. Concurrently with the amendment of the Supply Agreement, the Company amended the Option Agreement with MannKind, whereby the amendment to the Option Agreement extends the timing for payment of the capacity cancellation fee for 2017 and decreases the amounts payable as capacity cancellation fees for 2018 and 2019 in the event MannKind fails to exercise its minimum annual purchase option for any given year. The Company recognized the cancellation fee for 2017 of $1.5 million in net revenues in its consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016, and subsequently collected on this receivable. In addition to, and in consideration of the amended timeframe and other amendments contained in the amendment to the Supply Agreement in the amendment to the Option Agreement, the Supply Agreement Amendment provided the Company right of first refusal to participate in the development and commercialization of Afrezza ® in China through a collaborative arrangement. seekingalpha.com/instablog/175233-spencer-osborne/4992182-mannkind-contract-amphastar6.5 Right of First Refusal in China. In consideration of the amendments contained in this Second Amendment and in the Option Amendment, MannKind hereby grants Amphastar the right of first refusal to participate in the development and commercialization of Afrezza in China through a collaborative arrangement. Specifically, Amphastar and MannKind agree that MannKind will not commence the process of obtaining approval of Afrezza in China without first providing Amphastar with (NYSE:I) at least ninety (90) days prior written notice of MannKind's intention to commence the process of obtaining approval of Afrezza in China, and (ii) if Amphastar confirms its interest in collaborating in the development or commercialization of Afrezza in China in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of MannKind's notice, then the Parties shall reserve sixty (60) days to negotiate in good faith the terms of such a collaborative arrangement for Afrezza in China. In the event that the Parties are unable to agree on commercial terms for a collaborative agreement after the sixty (60) day negotiation period, then MannKind shall have the right to negotiate a collaborative agreement with another party ("Competing Terms"). MannKind shall present the Competing Terms to Amphastar in writing, and within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Competing Terms, Amphastar shall have the option to either decline to match the Competing Terms, or (ii) agree to match the same Competing Terms and enter into a collaborative agreement with MannKind in China. Let me add a little speculation to this and let me say "pure speculation". Recently a design engineering firm which has worked with MNKD in the past put out an RFI on the street looking for a packing solution to ship a "powdered pharma product" requiring "cold chain storage". Now, I am not aware of a lot of powdered products requiring cold chain refrigeration. Maybe others are, if so I would like some input. Its just one of those requests you just don't see everyday. The shipping solution would basically put the product in ship ready sterile plastic bags while keeping it refrigerated. Why is this important and potentially associated to Amphastar? It would allow MNKD to "brew and freeze dry" afrezza in Danbury and then ship to China where it could be put in the cartridges. This would address the Chinese requirement to manufacture the "final" product in China without requiring MNKD to give away the secret sauce recipe. Of course a filling line or two would need to be put in place. There is probably at least one in Danbury with cobwebs on it they could ship over and re-assemble and then back fill in Danbury. As I said pure speculation but the RFI is real. That you can take to the bank. The engineering firm would not disclose their client. Also, on the front door in Danbury is an international designated zone sign. I asked about this at the ASM. It seems they are getting ready for "things" overseas.
|
|