How Big Pharma Keeps Missing the Breakthrough Sitting in Plain Sight.
– and the perils born of complacency and profit while a breakthrough from nature — and maybe Providence — gets pushed back.
Some say Providence moves in mysterious ways. Maybe this time, it’s through an ancient virus that refuses to quit — one that nature left waiting for us to recognize. When medicine gets too comfortable, progress dies quietly. But sometimes, a spark from nature lights a fire that no empire can suppress.
Checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) have become a hundred-billion-dollar cash cow for Big Pharma — Merck (Keytruda), Bristol Myers Squibb (Opdivo, Yervoy), Roche/Genentech (Tecentriq), AstraZeneca (Imfinzi, Imjudo), Pfizer/Merck KGaA (Bavencio), and Sanofi/Regeneron (Libtayo). They’re marketed as miracle drugs with fancy names nobody can pronounce and results even harder to find. But the truth is stark: in cold tumors like pancreatic, ovarian, and prostate, they simply do not work. And even in “hot” tumors such as lung or melanoma, more than 70 percent of patients still fail to get durable benefit.
Big Pharma keeps pushing them anyway. Why? Because the cash cow needs feeding. They spin “potential” into trials and glossy presentations while patients get little. Over time, those cash cows turned into fat pigs — bloated on profits from drugs that barely work. Big Pharma has grown complacent, slow, and comfortable — a health empire feeding on repetition, not results.
They’ll tell you they’re just “following the science” or “moving at the FDA’s pace,” but that’s the smokescreen. When there’s profit on the line, these same companies fast-track approvals in months. Yet when a natural immune spark like Pelareorep threatens to expose their limits, suddenly caution becomes the convenient shield. The system lets them hide behind regulation — a perfect cover for complacency.
When HIV was the death sentence of the ’80s and ’90s, the world moved fast. Patients protested, regulators listened, and drugmakers cooperated. Within a few years, the “cocktail” approach turned a fatal diagnosis into a manageable disease. Cancer is no less deadly — millions die each year — yet the same urgency is nowhere to be found. The system has grown comfortable, letting time slip by while people fade quietly in hospital rooms. The science to spark a new era exists, but complacency keeps it on ice.
And it’s not just checkpoint inhibitors. Even the new wave of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are stuck in the same slow lane — testing themselves only against standard chemo, one cautious inch at a time. Those trials will take years, chasing small safety margins while real innovation waits on the sidelines.
Here’s the science. Cold tumors block T cells with a defense mechanism. CIs are supposed to cut that defense, but if no T cells are there to begin with, the drug has nothing to do.
This is where Pelareorep, developed by Oncolytics Biotech (ONCY), changes the story. Originally revealed in Dr. Albert Sabin’s polio labs in the 1950s, this ancient virus — perhaps a quiet gift of nature itself, waiting to be recognized — was later found to infect and destroy cancer cells while sparing healthy ones. Pela is not just another lab-made drug — it’s a clinically adapted virus, a gift from nature, that seeks out and infects cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue. In amplified IV doses, it penetrates tumors, cracks them open, and releases antigens that wake up the body’s T fighter cells — the immune system’s front-line soldiers. These cells replicate and multiply, then fan out to hunt down and attack cancer cells wherever they find them. Pela is more than just a spark plug. This immune platform is the critical missing piece of the Trinity that people need to help beat cancer.
And the proof is already there: when Pela was combined with Merck’s Keytruda in pancreatic cancer — a cold tumor where Keytruda alone does nothing — patients saw about a 30 percent clinical benefit rate. That’s a clear signal of what happens when the spark plug is added.
ONCY is now preparing a larger, pivotal-intent trial that pairs Pelareorep with the standard pancreatic-cancer chemo backbone — gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (the GnP regimen) — plus a checkpoint inhibitor. The design aims for regulatory acceptance while bringing Pela’s spark directly into a real-world frontline setting. What’s especially notable is that no checkpoint-inhibitor partner has yet been named, leaving the door open for one — or more — Big Pharmas to step in. But where are they?
Logic says Merck should be first in line. They already saw Pela lift Keytruda’s results by roughly 30 percent in a cancer where their own drug alone does nothing. Pairing Pela with Keytruda could unlock entire new indications — ovarian, pancreatic, even prostate — each worth billions. But doing so would also expose the truth: that Keytruda isn’t enough on its own. So instead of openly embracing the spark that could expand their reach, Merck sits back — at least for now — protecting the illusion of sufficiency while the opportunity — and the patients — wait.
Roche, with Tecentriq, has even more reason to move. They’ve already seen Pela in action — it was tested with Tecentriq in breast cancer and showed it could turn cold tumors hot. Yet, despite that firsthand data, Roche has stayed silent too. With Tecentriq’s market share fading and its own combination-heavy pipeline, Roche might have the most to gain by reigniting its CI franchise with Pela — but for now, it remains on the sidelines.
What would happen if a third targeted weapon — an ADC — were added to the regimen? That’s the Trinity Approach.
In this case, it isn’t the FDA holding things back — it’s Big Pharma itself, guarding its own franchises. These companies don’t need to hide behind regulation when silence works just as well. In choosing that silence, they aren’t just avoiding Pela — they’re suppressing Oncolytics Biotech (ONCY) itself, the small company holding the spark plug that could change the cancer fight.
And here’s the irony: ONCY themselves will never call this out. They can’t. A small biotech has to play nice with Big Pharma if they want a partnership or buyout. That leaves it to outside voices to point out the obvious — that Merck and others are knowingly milking cash cows that don’t hit the mark while suppressing the one piece that could truly move the needle.
And make no mistake: Oncolytics Biotech (ONCY) is not built to go it alone. Their resources are limited, which is why they’ve openly said they’re seeking a partner or strategic deal. The science is proven, but it will take a bigger player to scale it into a front-line weapon.
The other side of the coin is that if no one steps up, ONCY will keep pushing forward by themselves — years of more trials, more dilution, and more tears for patients waiting on something that already works. That’s the gamble. Do Big Pharmas keep suppressing, or does one finally seize the spark plug?
An antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) is targeted chemo — it delivers the toxic hit straight to the tumor cells without blasting the rest of the body like broad chemo does. That’s where real durable responses finally show up.
And yet, complacent Big Pharma execs would rather keep knowingly pushing their cash cows that don’t hit the mark.
Merck may not want this because it risks showing Keytruda’s limits. But other Big Pharmas could have a massive advantage by owning the spark plug:
Roche/Genentech (Tecentriq) could reignite a fading CI franchise.
AstraZeneca (Imfinzi, Imjudo) could sharpen its push in lung and GI cancers.
Pfizer/Merck KGaA (Bavencio) could finally stand out in a crowded CI market.
Bristol Myers Squibb (Opdivo, Yervoy) could fortify its lead before patent cliffs.
Johnson & Johnson — no CI of their own, but with an ADC pipeline, they could bolt Pela onto their targeted chemo agents and leapfrog the whole CI club.
Owning Pela means you can either rescue your CI franchise or supercharge your ADC portfolio. That’s not just market share. That’s hundreds of thousands of patients each year who could finally have real durable responses — to live better, longer, and stronger if Big Pharma stepped up instead of knowingly pushing cash cows that don’t hit the mark.
There should be white sharks circling by now — rivals who can smell the weakness and opportunity. The complacent empire may be bloated, but its edges are starting to bleed. The question isn’t whether they see the spark plug — it’s which one will strike first.
The Trinity is in plain sight. Science has it. The first company to act on it could spark the future of oncology.
And here’s the speculation: Johnson & Johnson, with its ADC arsenal but no CI of its own, may have the most to gain by stepping up on the Trinity Approach — especially with the new CEO of ONCY already having a track record inside J&J. But they wouldn’t be alone. Novartis, with its cell-therapy programs and growing ADC pipeline, could leap in. Gilead, sitting on Trodelvy but no checkpoint inhibitor, could bolt Pela onto its arsenal and suddenly have a Trinity cocktail of its own.
While Merck protects Keytruda and the rest of the CI club keeps knowingly milking cash cows that don’t hit the mark, the real question is which outsider will seize the missing piece — Oncolytics Biotech (ONCY) — and change the game.
Feature Opinion Story by Spider J. Jones
______________
More later so ....Stay tuned, if you dare !
For now, we close by noting that any view on the market and stocks on any particular day may change in the future days to come. That is why we watch and see how our views match up with the reality of the time. But trying to look ahead a few months into the future may be a way to do things. If you think too deep about world events and the recent alliances forming, projecting ahead can be a dicey endeavor. In all - we use the word maybe "some", not "too much" and play it accordingly. Remember, never get arrogant in our various notions because things do change in the market and individual stocks are subject to many factors outside of our control.. So we try to -stay aware.
With all the above caveats and attempted prognostications, I will close this post. Stay tuned for more opining on the market and stocks to watch.
________
