(Total Views: 445)
Posted On: 05/19/2019 12:21:07 PM
Post# of 72446
A post deleted for TOS violations tried to deflect the conversation by stating (correctly) that the term sheet involves only ulcerative proctitis, and then insulted those who refuted his incorrect claims, which were debunked by me in previous posts.
Yes, of course the term sheet is for only a limited spectrum of large-intestine problems. That is exactly the point I have been making over and over again.
That's not the point. The point is that he is claiming that there is a meaningful comparison between the sales of one small segment of the market (Uceris's tiny part of it), and the entire market; and also that it's meaningful even though we don't know whether Brilacidin is a CURE or induces remission.
Balderdash.
We have no idea what kind of upfront payment might be made, or what the eventual royalties would be, or anything else like that. To make claims that there is any way of telling at this point is foolish.
Yes, of course the term sheet is for only a limited spectrum of large-intestine problems. That is exactly the point I have been making over and over again.
That's not the point. The point is that he is claiming that there is a meaningful comparison between the sales of one small segment of the market (Uceris's tiny part of it), and the entire market; and also that it's meaningful even though we don't know whether Brilacidin is a CURE or induces remission.
Balderdash.
We have no idea what kind of upfront payment might be made, or what the eventual royalties would be, or anything else like that. To make claims that there is any way of telling at this point is foolish.
(5)
(0)
