twinter: On a CYDY message board where science deficient dumbbells like myself receive enormous benefit from reading very insightful science related posts from several prominent board members, I believe that your many recent highly insightful posts on LL's potential capabilities and the role of CCR5 in morbidity put you squarely in the company of ohm and a select few others. And your post here is certainly no exception. in terms of insight You lay out an extremely cogent argument that it would be financially impossible for CYDY to go it alone in fully developing Leronlimab's potential to treat all of the maladies that CCR5 advances. But while I agree that your predicate contains tons of insight, I don't fully agree with your conclusion, to wit: "I'm no business expert, but I don't think we go it alone."
My disagreement with your conclusion stems from the fact that I don't believe the only 2 options for Tanya and the new management teams are to sell LL or go it alone for every condition that LL can treat. Your convincing recital of LL's revenue generating potential convinces me and perhaps others that the most reasonable and practical way to maximize the value of LL may well be to go it alone in obtaining approval for LL to treat certain hand picked conditions, like all or some oncology conditions, and to negotiate a partnership or some type of revenue sharing agreement for the remainder of your long list of other CCR5 driven conditions.
And while some board posters suggest that even a 1st Leronlimab FDA approval cannot possibly happen until some time in the next decade and others insist that CYDY is clearly incapable of submitting an approvable BLA in the foreseeable future, it strikes me as reasonable to suggest, as I believe mightycydy implicitly did I his RevMed post, that if RevMed (RVMD) can become a $40B market cap company by gearing up to obtain a 1st FDA approval for a Kras mutation pancreatic cancer drug (that has far less future revenue potential than LL), then perhaps CYDY should follow the same template, unless or until some BP decides to offer CYDY actual fair value for the rights to some or all of LL's future revenues. Moreover, CYDY's management and staffing announcements during the conference call could certainly be viewed as consistent with initiating the RevMed strategic approach to creating shareholder value. By the way, Gemini has informed me that during the FDA's 2025 fiscal year, 15 to 35% of all NDAs and BLAs submitted for novel drugs were filed by inexperienced drug companies filing for the 1st time. So perhaps filing a BLA is not analogous to Denmark landing an astronaut on Mars. And if RevMed (as per the Journal article) was able to assemble an in house staff capable of submitting a BLA within a matter of months, why can't CYDY?
The beauty, twinter, of your insightful reminder of CCR5's role in morbidity is that CYDY, because of Leronlimab's massive revenue potential, can establish enormous leverage in any future BP negotiations if it can simply demonstrate the ability to obtain one measly FDA approval for LL. Once that is accomplished, the bargaining position (leverage) that CYDY will enjoy in subsequent BP negotiations for the revenue rights applicable to other conditions will be magnified far beyond what CYDY negotiators have likely experienced up until now when dealing with greedy BP. And that's because once you establish that you have a viable alternative to accepting low ball, take it or leave it offers, you have reset the playing field in your favor -- and in high stakes negotiations, that would mean plenty of new money.
My disagreement with your conclusion stems from the fact that I don't believe the only 2 options for Tanya and the new management teams are to sell LL or go it alone for every condition that LL can treat. Your convincing recital of LL's revenue generating potential convinces me and perhaps others that the most reasonable and practical way to maximize the value of LL may well be to go it alone in obtaining approval for LL to treat certain hand picked conditions, like all or some oncology conditions, and to negotiate a partnership or some type of revenue sharing agreement for the remainder of your long list of other CCR5 driven conditions.
And while some board posters suggest that even a 1st Leronlimab FDA approval cannot possibly happen until some time in the next decade and others insist that CYDY is clearly incapable of submitting an approvable BLA in the foreseeable future, it strikes me as reasonable to suggest, as I believe mightycydy implicitly did I his RevMed post, that if RevMed (RVMD) can become a $40B market cap company by gearing up to obtain a 1st FDA approval for a Kras mutation pancreatic cancer drug (that has far less future revenue potential than LL), then perhaps CYDY should follow the same template, unless or until some BP decides to offer CYDY actual fair value for the rights to some or all of LL's future revenues. Moreover, CYDY's management and staffing announcements during the conference call could certainly be viewed as consistent with initiating the RevMed strategic approach to creating shareholder value. By the way, Gemini has informed me that during the FDA's 2025 fiscal year, 15 to 35% of all NDAs and BLAs submitted for novel drugs were filed by inexperienced drug companies filing for the 1st time. So perhaps filing a BLA is not analogous to Denmark landing an astronaut on Mars. And if RevMed (as per the Journal article) was able to assemble an in house staff capable of submitting a BLA within a matter of months, why can't CYDY?
The beauty, twinter, of your insightful reminder of CCR5's role in morbidity is that CYDY, because of Leronlimab's massive revenue potential, can establish enormous leverage in any future BP negotiations if it can simply demonstrate the ability to obtain one measly FDA approval for LL. Once that is accomplished, the bargaining position (leverage) that CYDY will enjoy in subsequent BP negotiations for the revenue rights applicable to other conditions will be magnified far beyond what CYDY negotiators have likely experienced up until now when dealing with greedy BP. And that's because once you establish that you have a viable alternative to accepting low ball, take it or leave it offers, you have reset the playing field in your favor -- and in high stakes negotiations, that would mean plenty of new money.
10
