RE:More Than $7 With Combined IndicationsBigkahuna57 wrote: @2b7f6fab & DX33, et al.
You both make great points and I might add that if/when TLT inks several license agreements the SP should easily move above $2.5B. A few general estimates being: More outstanding shares than the end of this year b/c the license agreements/partnerships are hopefully within the next year. I think any partnership must be based on trial performance of NMIBC and/or whether Roger permits (outside partner) initial lab testing that would require NDA's and time to develop the "combination" proof-of-concept outside of TLT's lab results. A $300-500M upfront front deposit w/annual license payments would easily exceed $1B after FDA approval for any "combination" cancer drug therapy. Virus vaccines would be additional too. The annual spend for each indication/market segment for virus or specific cancer treatment seems plausible. Any partner would already have the R&D cash allocated for immediate investment. The recovery time from initial investment would be quick (3-5 years). The "data" for the FDA is the end of the obstacle course. FOMO, desperation, greed and/or shear self-preservation for any of the companies featured in the Merk article will initiate the negotiations for licenses and partnerships. I think the independent testing of combinations with TLT1433 is the reason for the 2025 timeline. On to the "realists" who bellow to the board.
To any of the "other" "realists" on this board - Do keep in mind that TLT does not have control of the patient follow-up data that the FDA required since the Pre-BTD meeting/review. You somehow keep bellowing to the board that TLT has no expertise in execution. Yet none of you appear to have any memory of the FDA requirements. Or purposely care not to remember correctly. How can this be with you decades of experience developing the cure for cancer? "The Group of Realists" preface your complaints/statements of fact without the inclusion of the FDA requirements, which are the highest order of precedence in this process. Every time you bellow (to each other) the rest of us recognize your hollow attemp at an argument to discredit the executive team.
I can only guess as to why you're hear. Cui Bono? Clearly - not you. If not you, then who?
I appreciate the many contributions of those with whom I share the hope of a cure for cancer and vaccines.
GLTA.
Regards, BK.
That was a Whopper of a post BK...sparked my apetite for sure.
With some financial creativity/wizadry, TLT should try to get to an FDA approval/AA prior to any partnership/licensing deal(s) imo...the potential returns for this ACT is just too valuable to strike any deal before this milestone achievement.
I'd also be seeking a future partner who can truly take this tech to next level... in a broad sense. In order to support more widespread changes in clinical practice, a head-to-head trial against a popular broad-spectrum & longstanding drug (i.e. Cisplatin) would be a great start imo. Cisplatin is used in multiple advanced cancers as SOC and as a combo drug in many others.
TLD 1433 is in the same metal/platinum-based class as Cisplatin. However, in being a 2nd generation metal-based drug, TLD 1433/Rutherrin has a plurality of action (i.e. can be activated by PDT & potentially other drug(s) & can exert mitochondrial/membrane effects in addition to its inherent DNA disruption). Per my non-exhaustive review of published research, such a plurality in mechanism of action is not a benefit shared by Cisplatin. Via Rutherrin, our ACT would also be significantly more specific for cancer & hence minimize the potential for side effects/toxicity often seen with Cisplatin & similar drugs. This specificity & MoA would also possibly allow for lower relative dosing. Due to our drug's unique properties, its onset of action &/or demonstrable tumor effects could also potentially occur sooner & last longer...just some more of my personal/grandiose thoughts that will hopefully pan out in the lab & clinic ; ). JMO & good luck...