Another $5 billion mistake from Albert - Roivant Deal

Quote












anonymous said:
Seagen was just as much about expanding Pfizer’s Oncology footprint as it was pipeline. Oncology will have the least impact to field force head count in the organizational change. This organization’s future is Oncology.
Click to expand...

Every Pharma company's future is oncology (or "rare diseases). Now WHY is that?

Damaged DNA causes lots of issues.
 












anonymous said:
Seagen was just as much about expanding Pfizer’s Oncology footprint as it was pipeline. Oncology will have the least impact to field force head count in the organizational change. This organization’s future is Oncology.
Click to expand...
Not the point, was referring to the price we paid for them given fact that they have had some less than stellar clinical results on some of their key pipeline products
 




anonymous said:
Every Pharma company's future is oncology (or "rare diseases). Now WHY is that?

Damaged DNA causes lots of issues.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but we’re way behind in coming to this realization. We needed to focus oncology r&d long ago on areas where we had expertise and legacy like rcc and bc. Other companies - the successful ones we all know about - have done so. We didn’t, and let others build upon our successes and bring in next gen therapies that are displacing ours. credit where credit is due, we have had some success at developing our own lc therapies. Just not enough.

Then we should have spent money more wisely on small biotechs with assets that showed great promise and that were aligned to a focused strategy. We did the opposite, we overpaid for already approved therapies. Or we signed desperate co-promote deals with bit players like EMD Serono. Or we were a 4th entrant into a market.

Lastly, we should have built an oncology team that is distinct from the rest of Pfizer, because oncology is different. We should have brought in leaders, marketers, medical and commercial teams with oncology knowledge and relationships. Instead we took an insular approach and put people into roles where they had neither - including at the very top.

All of this is fixable, but the challenges we face first need to be accepted.
 








anonymous said:
Indeed, but we’re way behind in coming to this realization. We needed to focus oncology r&d long ago on areas where we had expertise and legacy like rcc and bc. Other companies - the successful ones we all know about - have done so. We didn’t, and let others build upon our successes and bring in next gen therapies that are displacing ours. credit where credit is due, we have had some success at developing our own lc therapies. Just not enough.

Then we should have spent money more wisely on small biotechs with assets that showed great promise and that were aligned to a focused strategy. We did the opposite, we overpaid for already approved therapies. Or we signed desperate co-promote deals with bit players like EMD Serono. Or we were a 4th entrant into a market.

Lastly, we should have built an oncology team that is distinct from the rest of Pfizer, because oncology is different. We should have brought in leaders, marketers, medical and commercial teams with oncology knowledge and relationships. Instead we took an insular approach and put people into roles where they had neither - including at the very top.

All of this is fixable, but the challenges we face first need to be accepted.
Click to expand...

Your post can be summarized like this "Pfizer did what Pfizer does". It was like this when my company got acquired in early 00s. No one from my company wanted to work here, so they put marketers from brands that sold themselves over our brands. They were clueless! They pulled trained from Pfizer manager training that had waited years to be promoted to RM level and made them RMs. Turnover was huge immediately afterward, because those people were awful.

We are still doing the same thing in Rare Diseases. Its a clown show!
 








anonymous said:
Indeed, but we’re way behind in coming to this realization. We needed to focus oncology r&d long ago on areas where we had expertise and legacy like rcc and bc. Other companies - the successful ones we all know about - have done so. We didn’t, and let others build upon our successes and bring in next gen therapies that are displacing ours. credit where credit is due, we have had some success at developing our own lc therapies. Just not enough.

Then we should have spent money more wisely on small biotechs with assets that showed great promise and that were aligned to a focused strategy. We did the opposite, we overpaid for already approved therapies. Or we signed desperate co-promote deals with bit players like EMD Serono. Or we were a 4th entrant into a market.

Lastly, we should have built an oncology team that is distinct from the rest of Pfizer, because oncology is different. We should have brought in leaders, marketers, medical and commercial teams with oncology knowledge and relationships. Instead we took an insular approach and put people into roles where they had neither - including at the very top.

All of this is fixable, but the challenges we face first need to be accepted.
Click to expand...

But you don’t understand! DE&I is all that matters!!

Pfizer doesn’t need competent leadership - Pfizer needs diversity!! Yaaaaayyyy!!!

Count Bourla is a veterinarian - Go Albert Go!!

Woohoo!!!!
 




anonymous said:
But you don’t understand! DE&I is all that matters!!

Pfizer doesn’t need competent leadership - Pfizer needs diversity!! Yaaaaayyyy!!!

Count Bourla is a veterinarian - Go Albert Go!!

Woohoo!!!!
Click to expand...

Please go away, snowflake. Your constant crying about diversity on every thread is pedantic and banal, at best. I've never seen a bigger and louder bunch of entitled snowflakes than I have here. You (and your like-minded cronies) will soon have more to cry about than some fake Pfizer initiative. Much more!
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote