Agree with BL’s logic here. I just double checked my notes from the calls and there’s nothing explicit that I caught, this has just always been my understanding. On 9/13, he split the discussion between HIV licensing and non-HIV licensing. I suppose that implies to me all of HIV. If I came across as definitive in my statement, I probably should have been more careful. I don’t know anything here that wasn’t mentioned in calls.

However, I don’t agree with your logic that there’s nothing to license re: mono. There’s very little functional difference between a partnership where an entity helps fund trials along the way for the right to sell the drug later and a licensing deal. In this case, it could be implied in the terms and discussions that a portion of the revenue and/or milestones that CYDY is to receive is due to the need to fund the mono trial, etc. They could negotiate it however they choose.