Keeping Tabs on Provectus

I recently had the opportunity to speak with an executive (formerly scientifically- and operationally-focused, now transaction-oriented in his current role and responsbilities) from Big Pharma (a top 5 company) who has been keeping tabs on Provectus. This first conversation was brief, as I spoke with him while he was in a taxi during several long days at a conference.


Recall my previous comments regarding's Craig Eagle and Pfizer's "pole position" in this blog post, and Dr. Eagle's keeping tabs on Provectus.


My thoughts from a short call follow. He (the above mentioned Big Pharma executive):

• Was constructive on PV-10's local-regional and systemic benefits;

• Highlighted the clear need and market opportunity for a loco-regional treatment option;

• Thinks PV-10 and the trial data are real, and that what management has accomplished in bringing PV-10 along the drug development process thus far was/is an amazing testament to the team;

• Complimented Provectus regarding its efforts to facilitate and maintain an efficient due diligence process for interested parties (I appreciated this particular perspective of his as a former corporate investor: "Process does not make a bad deal good, but it can make a good deal great.");

• Spoke to the technical assessment process at Big Pharma, where folks are trying to ascertain if PV-10 indeed is real. A drug cannot be a black box, where technical assessors are unable to understand how it works. As a result, understanding PV-10's mechanisms of action and immune response are important. Of course, such information from Moffitt (particularly as it relates to the drug's immune or bystander effect), in addition to Provectus' historical work, already has contributed to Big Pharma current knowledge, and more Moffitt results are inbound;

• Expanded his comments above to include final clinical data, and it's impact on the technical assessment process;

• Added one could not diminish the "damn intellectually interesting" aspect of PV-10 -- a local agent that has material and meaningful systemic benefit -- in the thought process of Big Pharma technical assessors;

• Commented on the importance of appropriate, careful media relations work to increase the interest level of Big Pharma commercial people as the technical assessment process reaches its conclusion. A greater profile in the news contributes to catching and increasing the attention of these commercial folks; and

• Expanded his comments above to add that getting play in the media was a slippery slope. Biotechnology companies have to careful in what they say, when they say it and how they say it, so mistakes or misrepresentations, even if inadvertent, are not made.