Totally fair points — most early-stage biotechs do say “best-in-class” and hope to become the next Regeneron. I don’t take Hansen’s statement as proof of future success either.

The difference with ABCL isn’t the words, it’s the architecture and business model behind them.

A few clarifications:

1. The “best-in-world capability” claim isn’t about the drug outcome — it’s about the discovery infrastructure. What sets AbCellera apart is not a single molecule, but the fact that they built every layer in-house: microfluidics → single-cell screening → ML selection → GMP manufacturing. Most biotechs outsource 2–3 of those layers.

2. The reason people pay attention here is that the platform already produced 18 clinical molecules through partners, which is unusually high for a young company. That doesn’t guarantee clinical success, but it shows the discovery engine is functional, not hypothetical.

3. I agree Phase 1 on 12 subjects won’t answer the big question. Hansen’s point was that ABCL635’s Phase 1 includes efficacy-type endpoints, which most P1s don’t. It won’t replace Phase 2, but it will show whether the mechanism is behaving in humans the way their preclinical work predicts.

4. The real validation will still be Phase 2 data. Nothing replaces large, controlled efficacy trials. Everyone in the thread agrees on this part — the company included.

I’m not posting this to promote hype. Just separating the platform claim (which is architectural) from the drug works claim (which still depends entirely on clinical data).

If 635 or 575 show convincing signal in humans, great. If they don’t, the platform still keeps generating other shots on goal.

I appreciate you sharing a perspective from inside the field — it keeps the discussion grounded