RE:RE:RE:News! As per BT’s last post. This is where the Witkowski, Wiseman, hemophilia consortium scientists - along with costs of keeping these programs moving forward - made for some interesting reading in the MD&A. Now it’s about where we spend our cash rather than how we preserve our cash. And then there is the potential for a buyout by a large suitor, assuming the results will be what we think they are, and how do each of these separate instruments keep playing their parts in this overall symphony of cure-ation after a possible transfer of control of the science (i.e. Any deal would be premised on the idea that the IP and the evidence/results are at a point where the ambiguity vs. risk trade off in each indication, no longer rests with each separate study, but rather, with the overall reliability and efficaciousness of the device/platform). Are the next two announcements going to resolve this? For example, do we need to get to something that says conformal coating works before the stock price blows up again? I think by then large pharma will have waited too long to get a good deal on the relative cheap (and yes, that is NOT happening in the next two announcements). However, three more patients no longer requiring insulin injections might require the buyer’s vaults to open up because the primary risk thresholds as opposed to secondary or managing thresholds, are now passed. From a valuation standpoint then, this is almost an “all or nothing” bet. Thus, playing only with free shares is a solid strategy. Something else to think about other than Can-o-crafts manipulation and BoD missteps or if $1.60 or $3.00+ is the better off ramp.
DF