Page 112 - Binder2

Even the language we use reflects this bias:

• We talk about “non-response,” not immune
rejection.
• We say a patient “failed a biologic,” not that the
biologic failed to earn immune acceptance.
• We normalize switching, rather than question why
switching is necessary in the first place.

And so, the cycle continues:
Build. Approve. Launch. Switch.
Each step optimized for short-term success—but blind to
long-term sustainability.

This is not a failure of intelligence. The science is there.
The tools are emerging.
This is a failure of incentives, alignment, and vision.

Until immune compatibility becomes a commercial
advantage—until it’s measured, rewarded, and expected—
it will remain a scientific footnote. But there’s no indication
that things are going to change anytime soon.

And biologics will continue to fail not because we can’t
make them work, but because we never designed them to
stay.

So it's up to us to find a solution with staying power.

110