(Total Views: 1109)
Posted On: 11/28/2023 9:49:13 PM
Post# of 148870
To my good friend Respert: it seems to me that the Samsung termination announcement is likely at odds with out mutual dismissal of MLAB"s (aka Upwithstock) contention, based on wording in the 2nd paragraph of the November 3 letter to shareholders, that CYDY had recently transferred its LL manufacturing technology to a third party BO or partnership entity.
The subject transfer language, as ER has so ably just reminded us, states:
"We have successfully transferred our manufacturing technology
allowing us to manufacture Leronlimab at scale in preparation for
clinical trials and potential FDA approval."
We both viewed the above language as merely a reference to the historical achievement of establishing a manufacturing relationship with Samsung. However, I have to admit that MLAB's recent manufacturing technology transfer and BO/partnership scenario makes much more sense with Samsung now out of the LL manufacturing picture.
First of all, it strikes me as highly unlikely that CYDY didn't have reasonable notice that Samsung would be terminating the contract effective November 21. Nevertheless, Dr Jay still came on board on November 17. And while this afternoon's 8K states that CYDY has enough LL for the short term, what if an EUA is granted preparatory to the clinical trial? Where would the LL come from "at scale" to benefit CYDY for such an extraordinary and long awaited opportunity?
Generactor just posted that CYDY has used AGC to manufacture LL in the past, but that was probably more than 2 years ago and likely involved relatively small quantities of LL. Given the unpaid Samsung bill, I have a hard time envisioning CYDY buying LL on credit from a Samsung competitor. Moreover, why is Samsung apparently patiently waiting to get paid its $33M instead of commencing suit for payment? And if the apparent recent transfer of manufacturing technology wasn't to a Samsung competitor, who's left to manufacture it, other than a BP with its in house manufacturing capabilities?
As usual, trying to make sense out of the scant info provided by CYDY management remains a fool's errand.
But maybe MLAB is no fool. Wouldn't that be great?
The subject transfer language, as ER has so ably just reminded us, states:
"We have successfully transferred our manufacturing technology
allowing us to manufacture Leronlimab at scale in preparation for
clinical trials and potential FDA approval."
We both viewed the above language as merely a reference to the historical achievement of establishing a manufacturing relationship with Samsung. However, I have to admit that MLAB's recent manufacturing technology transfer and BO/partnership scenario makes much more sense with Samsung now out of the LL manufacturing picture.
First of all, it strikes me as highly unlikely that CYDY didn't have reasonable notice that Samsung would be terminating the contract effective November 21. Nevertheless, Dr Jay still came on board on November 17. And while this afternoon's 8K states that CYDY has enough LL for the short term, what if an EUA is granted preparatory to the clinical trial? Where would the LL come from "at scale" to benefit CYDY for such an extraordinary and long awaited opportunity?
Generactor just posted that CYDY has used AGC to manufacture LL in the past, but that was probably more than 2 years ago and likely involved relatively small quantities of LL. Given the unpaid Samsung bill, I have a hard time envisioning CYDY buying LL on credit from a Samsung competitor. Moreover, why is Samsung apparently patiently waiting to get paid its $33M instead of commencing suit for payment? And if the apparent recent transfer of manufacturing technology wasn't to a Samsung competitor, who's left to manufacture it, other than a BP with its in house manufacturing capabilities?
As usual, trying to make sense out of the scant info provided by CYDY management remains a fool's errand.
But maybe MLAB is no fool. Wouldn't that be great?
(15)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
