Musing over the last interview
Post# of 154376
(Total Views: 399)
Posted On: 12/10/2019 10:52:37 AM
I have been musing over the short interview and wanted to share with you my thoughts:
First of all, why was this done in the first place? It was very short and unnecessary (maybe). Three things are possible IMO:
1) Wanted to share with us the progress of his mother.
2) Wanted us to see Dr. Bruce Patterson and support the price with his positive, implicit backing by means of his scientific comments
3) Wanted to tell us that something has changed with the deal (in which case Dr. Patterson appearance was simply a filler as otherwise the interview would had been very difficult to make as NP did not want to talk about anything else, details.
These “interviews” are of, course, highly staged and a means of him to communicate with us. In this particular case, was not even a pitch as did not say anything else about the company and was only addressing people “in the know” (us shareholders) and not posible stock buyers.
I think the most probable reason is the latter (something has changed). Reading “between lines” (all of this is simply my opinion, I do not have any more information than anybody else and have been wrong in the past) I think the deal is finalized but “something” came out as of late and now NP does not feel that signing it is the right thing to do.
This can be positive or negative.
Negative: If it means that the final agreement is not what he wanted and the partner does not want to move from its negotiating position. The deal is finished and can be signed as is but CYDY is not that happy with the final product.
Also, there is the possibility that the deal is over (partner or CYDY pulled off and NP want to “prepare us” for the bad news slowly.
The interview was simply a “buy time” mechanism where the deal will take much longer and he is simply telling us that it is there, but not going at the expected speed.
Positive if it means that something else has come up:
A possible offer in Oncoloy, however this does not explain why we can’t close the USA HIV deal and negotiate this independently.
A larger pharma (now not a middle pharma but a BP) is interested and CYDY wants to explore the possibility of, rather, negotiating with them.
An offer for another indication (NASH?) that would give CYDY the freedom to have prompt economic independence and pursue a better deal for HIV (or go solo).
A BO offer for the whole enchilada, no questions asked, no this yes and that no. To buy the CCR5 antagonist (patents) for whatever indication under the sun. Period. This would prevent NP from selling HIV rights and would kill the ongoing deal with the middle-pharma.
We will know soon. I hope it is a positive development, but ... difficult to place the truth without more info.
First of all, why was this done in the first place? It was very short and unnecessary (maybe). Three things are possible IMO:
1) Wanted to share with us the progress of his mother.
2) Wanted us to see Dr. Bruce Patterson and support the price with his positive, implicit backing by means of his scientific comments
3) Wanted to tell us that something has changed with the deal (in which case Dr. Patterson appearance was simply a filler as otherwise the interview would had been very difficult to make as NP did not want to talk about anything else, details.
These “interviews” are of, course, highly staged and a means of him to communicate with us. In this particular case, was not even a pitch as did not say anything else about the company and was only addressing people “in the know” (us shareholders) and not posible stock buyers.
I think the most probable reason is the latter (something has changed). Reading “between lines” (all of this is simply my opinion, I do not have any more information than anybody else and have been wrong in the past) I think the deal is finalized but “something” came out as of late and now NP does not feel that signing it is the right thing to do.
This can be positive or negative.
Negative: If it means that the final agreement is not what he wanted and the partner does not want to move from its negotiating position. The deal is finished and can be signed as is but CYDY is not that happy with the final product.
Also, there is the possibility that the deal is over (partner or CYDY pulled off and NP want to “prepare us” for the bad news slowly.
The interview was simply a “buy time” mechanism where the deal will take much longer and he is simply telling us that it is there, but not going at the expected speed.
Positive if it means that something else has come up:
A possible offer in Oncoloy, however this does not explain why we can’t close the USA HIV deal and negotiate this independently.
A larger pharma (now not a middle pharma but a BP) is interested and CYDY wants to explore the possibility of, rather, negotiating with them.
An offer for another indication (NASH?) that would give CYDY the freedom to have prompt economic independence and pursue a better deal for HIV (or go solo).
A BO offer for the whole enchilada, no questions asked, no this yes and that no. To buy the CCR5 antagonist (patents) for whatever indication under the sun. Period. This would prevent NP from selling HIV rights and would kill the ongoing deal with the middle-pharma.
We will know soon. I hope it is a positive development, but ... difficult to place the truth without more info.
(4)
(0)