David Li @davidycli

Life sciences x technology x markets per aspera ad astra San Francisco, CA Joined July 2014

Tweets

1K
Followers

5K
Following

1K
Likes

15K

David Li @davidycli

a day ago

@prime_ghostt @stevenzheng69 @grammarflic @chinsanity Don’t know about CA but he was objectively best in Bay Area his senior yr There are many open gym stories of him cooking top ranked prospects from then

1 0 4 108 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 days ago

@saranormous 💯💯💯 Say it louder for the folks in the back Time to snap out of the psychosis

0 0 1 1K 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

6 days ago

@plainyogurt21 Amen

0 0 4 560 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

7 days ago

@merobiotech @byersblake @jackdent Vast majority of biotech has no idea what’s coming

1 0 4 165 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

a week ago

@RuxandraTeslo Let’s get more drugs made 🙌

1 0 8 811 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

a week ago

@NikoMcCarty Highly consistent with numbers I’ve seen

0 0 1 1K 1

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

There is a fundamental flaw with the argument: “U.S. is 70% of global profits in tx and therefore can dictate which therapies are allowed in the U.S., including excluding China assets". The weight bearing assumption is that China’s biotech industry will not be able to sustain itself without US market. This does not conform with reality. Prior to 2022, Chinese biotech industry had minimal capital inflows from outlicensing / newco’s to US / Western pharma AND a very austere tx pricing environment domestically. Yet significant companies grew to dominate the domestic market, and many Chinese biotechs managed to move up the innovation curve. Do you think that Chinese biotechs sprang up overnight in Dec 2022 when this out licensing wave started? Akeso, Keymed, Hengrui, Hansoh, Innovent, and so many others have been around for years - pretty much all of them starting off by making drugs for the domestic China market. US out licensing deals were few and far in between, and yet many of them became $ B+ or $10’s Bn companies in the process. Furthermore, in recent months the Chinese payor market is now getting better at rewarding true innovation. 2025 NRDL reform introduced a higher pricing tier for true innovation (not me-betters). Domestic economics for first-in-class assets are getting meaningfully stronger, regardless of the exit to Western pharma path. From a unit economics perspective, "removing the exit to the West will kill Chinese biotech progress" argument just isn’t supported by facts on the ground. Another serious drawback to the banning argument is that presumes Chinese drugs are only me betters or me toos that are knock offs of western efforts (and will continue to be). Otherwise, the interpretation is that US patients would be ok not having access to the latest and greatest drugs. This, too, does not conform with reality. Chinese biotechs are now making net new innovative drugs across ADCs, in vivo CARs, genetic medicines and many more modalities, going after novel targets, payloads, and incorporating delivery tech that we have not seen here in the west; and if they work clinically - US patients will want access to as they will improve the clinical treatment paradigm. I have spoken to the Chinese biotech CEOs and seen these programs. Some will work and some won’t (that’s just drug discovery), but they are coming, and there is no use in arguing about it. Do you think it will be acceptable that US patients will not have access to best in class / first in class drugs? so to summarize: in the US, we have an industry that is *losing* pricing power (no matter if R or Ds are in power, tx pricing pressure is on the docket), trying to keep drugs being made from a country with *increasing* pricing power (based on government support) out, at a time when those drugs are increasingly innovative. Who do you think the actual loser from this is going to be? US patients. all this to say: the back and forth arguing is a moot point, the innovation is coming **whether we like it or not**. I’d suggest we in the US get busy competing, investing in innovative science, deregulating trials, and doing less belly aching. Patients, American and otherwise, are waiting.

9 3 34 7K 23

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@jrkelly @daphnezohar That and more :)

1 0 1 154 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@jrkelly @daphnezohar Go on the ground, talk to a few biotech CEOs over there and you will change your opinion on this

1 0 1 201 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

Then Chinese biotechs will not develop for the US market And if their assets are good, US patients will miss out The fundamental flaw of the US profit argument is that Chinese biotechs will keep developing valuable, clinically impactful drugs for their own population no matter what It’s just a matter of whether US patients will have access

5 0 5 579 1

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@merobiotech @daphnezohar @BiotechCH Soon ;)

1 0 1 215 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@docrodwong @jrkelly Required reading for all the protectionists.

0 0 1 231 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@xinchen_w @SylvainGariel Smh only possible in China…

1 0 0 71 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@SylvainGariel Even in China they are not mentioned with leaders of local biotech industry yet - but chalk this up to biotech entrepreneurs in China being mostly ex traditional drug discovery folks and relatively conservative / not fully being computational pilled yet

0 0 0 94 0

View Details

David Li @davidycli

2 weeks ago

@eperlste indeed the genie is out the bottle

0 0 3 980 0

View Details

Rod Wong, MD @docrodwong

3 weeks ago

moolenaar's proposal would likely have the opposite of the intended effect. if u ban US pharma from acquiring chinese IP, what is likely to happen is EU/Japanese pharma will get that IP, and u hand them a structural advantage. if u somehow convince them to also ban china deals, then u force chinese biotech to forward integrate and compete directly sooner. hengrui and at least 10 other biotechs already have the resources to do so. then let's say u ban those companies from the US market, then u just have a replay of the EV story, chinese pharma will just take over the rest of the world. the proposal also tries to scare people by drawing the analogy to chips and rare earths. there is no such analogy. licensing deals are for IP, and almost always include the right to manufacture wherever you want. so there is no supply chain risk. in fact, in drug world, the vast majority of the value of drug IP accrues to whoever develops and commercializes a drug, not who invented it. so right now western pharma is the winner from this relationship. so if the Q is well how do we not lose to china longterm? the answer is we must compete. america is great, we should lean into our natural advantages. continue to lead in breakthru science, maintain fda's position as the preeminent regulator, apply our cutting edge technology, and entice the world's best with the most pro-innovation commercial market. these leads are larger than many realize. we should mitigate our weaknesses, most importantly the bureaucracy that comes from being around longer than others that slows us down.

Max Bayer @maxonwifi

3 weeks ago

Could we be nearing the end of the China biotech deal wave? At least one prominent GOP lawmaker is pushing for the government to restrict them. endpoints.news/gop-lawmaker-a…