|
|
Post by ktim on Sept 24, 2024 14:02:03 GMT -5
Realistic thought on probability is that we have no clue, unless someone has a way of reading minds from a distance. Most people have pretty wide 95% confidence intervals when it comes to mind reading.  |
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Sept 24, 2024 14:55:58 GMT -5
Agree with BD on this. These chatbot type posts all read like Zack's articles. Full of objectively mostly-true "facts" loosely connected and leading to noncommittal conclusions that something might happen, or that same something might not happen. But it seems our posters here generally identify clearly what content is chatbot created, which is what the protocol should be on a respected board like PB (as contrasted with StockTwits where anything goes). I have found that the results you receive using chatbots is greatly nuanced by the question you submit. Therefore, I find it very useful to also post the question submitted to a chatbot in order to get more clarity on their answers. Hence, my post starts with, "Per CHat GPT regarding my question related to the "probability of a partnership": It's very entertaining to believe that BI and MNKD will partner...it's another to think realistically about the probability. Just my .02 That's an excellent point hellodolly. Thank you for including the preface to your post with what you asked Chat GPT. I would suggest that posters go even a little bit further than you did, by including the exact query put to Chat GPT (or whatever AI source it is), rather than simply paraphrasing or summarizing it. That's for the same reason you point out, that if i'm querying Chat GPT i can somewhat "suggest" the answer by how i phrase the query. For example, if I ask it to "please provide reasons why a partnership between MNKD and BI makes sense for both companies" the answer will presumably be different than if I ask "please provide reasons why a partnership between MNKD and BI does not make sense for one or both companies." So for me to then post "here's what Chat GPT says about a possible partnership between MNKD and BI" would be disingenuous and misleading. Posting the exact question (not just paraphrasing the query) would provide important info for our posters and readers. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Sept 24, 2024 15:20:47 GMT -5
I don't know if a partnership between MannKind and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) "makes sense", but I am in favor of such a collaboration and I do think BI and MNKD both have good incentives to consider it.
Whether they do or they don't, an inhalable form of nintedanib which usefully treated Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) without the significant tolerability issues of Ofev would be a big step forward, and considering that Ofev is far and away the multi-billion dollar market leader, a positive differentiation for MannKind's nintedanib DPI should be a huge benefit both to patients and MannKind shareholders.
|
|
|
|
Post by cretin11 on Sept 24, 2024 15:48:26 GMT -5
You can refer to the posts above by cjm18 and hellodolly for numerous reasons why such a partnership could make sense. If you want some reasons why it would not make sense, then I suggest phrasing your query accordingly. Chat GPT will probably have an answer to that too. |
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Sept 24, 2024 17:23:26 GMT -5
You can refer to the posts above by cjm18 and hellodolly for numerous reasons why such a partnership could make sense. If you want some reasons why it would not make sense, then I suggest phrasing your query accordingly. Chat GPT will probably have an answer to that too. That's not a bad suggestion, if I wanted to know the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Sept 24, 2024 18:07:38 GMT -5
I don't know if a partnership between MannKind and Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) "makes sense", but I am in favor of such a collaboration and I do think BI and MNKD both have good incentives to consider it. Whether they do or they don't, an inhalable form of nintedanib which usefully treated Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) without the significant tolerability issues of Ofev would be a big step forward, and considering that Ofev is far and away the multi-billion dollar market leader, a positive differentiation for MannKind's nintedanib DPI should be a huge benefit both to patients and MannKind shareholders. Seems UTHR came to that conclusion with Tyvaso. I know UTHR approached MNKD but, the SWOT analysis/process should answer those questions no matter who picked up the phone first. If in an analysis BI sees something that can help improve/extend their market share, rather than MNKD being a threat but an opportunity, the numbers will follow. Not sure, but I believe we have discussed this in another thread, I would be happy with another royalty deal, some upfront cash, manufacturing milestones, collaboration and services agreement to cover cost, etc. The deal with UTHR has provided a nice cushion for MNKD so...why not again? However, as of now we have all our eggs in one basket with UTHR. Additional deals, like the one we're discussing, spreads out that risk while notching yet another win for the DPI technology. |
|
|
|
Post by ktim on Sept 24, 2024 22:59:36 GMT -5
I'd trust management to figure out how best to monetize, whether it's partnering or going it alone... pros and cons to each path, and of course one option requires a willing partner.
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Sept 25, 2024 6:26:48 GMT -5
I'd trust management to figure out how best to monetize, whether it's partnering or going it alone... pros and cons to each path, and of course one option requires a willing partner. I agree and am not concerned. If the nintedanib DPI Phase 1 trial goes well, MannKind management is sitting in the catbird seat. IIRC, the Phase 1 readout is in 1Q 2025. And I assume early information could be disclosed to a potential partner under an NDA. |
|
|
|
Post by casualinvestor on Sept 25, 2024 8:45:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by prcgorman2 on Sept 25, 2024 9:50:57 GMT -5
I think you're right. I could be wrong of course but I do think the timing changed. I want to say they're ahead of their original schedule and readout will now be 4Q24 instead of 1Q25. |
|
