NP has told us publicly that BP was not interested
Post# of 154038
(Total Views: 456)
Posted On: 03/03/2020 4:04:25 PM
Re: craigakess #20030
NP has told us publicly that BP was not interested in COMBO, but that they are interested in MONO. One (IMO) credible theory is that BP is in no hurry to kill their cash cow via MONO, so just let CYDY take as long as possible to get MONO to the tipping point -- then act. However, the V licensing deal makes that a lot messier now.
RE the other indications -- they are all still very early in the process, but cancer is gaining steam quickly. And it sounds as if the in-vitro test we did for NASH was not the type of test that BP was looking for. Hence, we are doing another type of test that is what caused BP to pay out the big bucks to another company.
IMO, we were unlikely to get bought out due to COMBO, but MONO or PreP would likely change that equation.
After that, it is cancer or NASH -- whichever reaches the tipping point first.
+++++
My concern, along similar lines, is why we don't have any pharma institutional ownership? That has been the thing that keeps me up at night. There are myriad PE and Hedge Funds that would seemingly love to get into something like this. (And they are not governed by the requirements of a lot of the other institutional investors vis-a-vis penny stocks on the OTC). We all know the science is great. The balance sheet is terrible. And we all have our own views on management and the BOD. Investment from one of these funds would help address the balance sheet (presuming direct investment vs. open market buying). So that leaves just one reasonable criteria whereby they choose not to invest.
So, the "bet" is whether what we believe to be a great product can overcome the "bet" against management and the BOD.
RE the other indications -- they are all still very early in the process, but cancer is gaining steam quickly. And it sounds as if the in-vitro test we did for NASH was not the type of test that BP was looking for. Hence, we are doing another type of test that is what caused BP to pay out the big bucks to another company.
IMO, we were unlikely to get bought out due to COMBO, but MONO or PreP would likely change that equation.
After that, it is cancer or NASH -- whichever reaches the tipping point first.
+++++
My concern, along similar lines, is why we don't have any pharma institutional ownership? That has been the thing that keeps me up at night. There are myriad PE and Hedge Funds that would seemingly love to get into something like this. (And they are not governed by the requirements of a lot of the other institutional investors vis-a-vis penny stocks on the OTC). We all know the science is great. The balance sheet is terrible. And we all have our own views on management and the BOD. Investment from one of these funds would help address the balance sheet (presuming direct investment vs. open market buying). So that leaves just one reasonable criteria whereby they choose not to invest.
So, the "bet" is whether what we believe to be a great product can overcome the "bet" against management and the BOD.
(5)
(0)