(Total Views: 680)
Posted On: 12/12/2021 12:09:16 PM
Post# of 148885
Re: Goosebumps #112260
Goosebumps, with l due respect, You aren't looking at the full picture by assuming a BP partner would be of no benefit. To play devils advocate for a sec. It depends on whether the investment is solely about the money or whether you're truly interested in saving the patients afflicted. If the latter is incorporated then a prior partnership could have benefited us.
I'm not one to bring up the past typically, as that's something we can't change, or at least not me. But as an example, if we had partnered with a Big Pharma (i.e. Merck, Eli Lily, Roche, etc....someone who would be a competitor to Gilead) last year March 2020 for COVID (excluding Long Haulers, as that wasn't known, and is really it's own unique pathology) we would have had the pull and the resources to have a larger trial and a more appropriate protocol, as we now have in Brazil. Subgroup data could have even pulled off an EUA if we had a true partner, especially if we had one of them running the trials, not us, so basically we just collect the paychecks when it's done.
For a drug that has pre-established safety data, we could have pulled off a 70/30 split BP/CYDY, or close to it. 30% of Billions $$$ over the last 2 years, more importantly could have been used to expedite other trials significantly, where we'd be much further ahead in Cancer, LH, HIV, than we are. Not to mention our stock price would have been double digits (at least) with many fewer outstanding shares.
My point is not to say you are 100% wrong, but I guess its determined in what your goals are. We could be worth a lot of money right now by taking only 30% of COVID, then we've got the rest of our indications to focus on.
But I'm here to focus on the future. So let's get this BTD in mTNBC, get our HIV refiled, LH P2 started, and our unblinded NASH results. Hoping to get the 30 open label NASH results at this weeks webcast, but not setting that as an expectation.
GLTA Longs here and look forward to the day bashers/shorts are filing for bankruptcy to pay their losses
I'm not one to bring up the past typically, as that's something we can't change, or at least not me. But as an example, if we had partnered with a Big Pharma (i.e. Merck, Eli Lily, Roche, etc....someone who would be a competitor to Gilead) last year March 2020 for COVID (excluding Long Haulers, as that wasn't known, and is really it's own unique pathology) we would have had the pull and the resources to have a larger trial and a more appropriate protocol, as we now have in Brazil. Subgroup data could have even pulled off an EUA if we had a true partner, especially if we had one of them running the trials, not us, so basically we just collect the paychecks when it's done.
For a drug that has pre-established safety data, we could have pulled off a 70/30 split BP/CYDY, or close to it. 30% of Billions $$$ over the last 2 years, more importantly could have been used to expedite other trials significantly, where we'd be much further ahead in Cancer, LH, HIV, than we are. Not to mention our stock price would have been double digits (at least) with many fewer outstanding shares.
My point is not to say you are 100% wrong, but I guess its determined in what your goals are. We could be worth a lot of money right now by taking only 30% of COVID, then we've got the rest of our indications to focus on.
But I'm here to focus on the future. So let's get this BTD in mTNBC, get our HIV refiled, LH P2 started, and our unblinded NASH results. Hoping to get the 30 open label NASH results at this weeks webcast, but not setting that as an expectation.
GLTA Longs here and look forward to the day bashers/shorts are filing for bankruptcy to pay their losses
(12)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
