RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:2025 Outlook rollthedice10 wrote: Well, to get into the big leagues which is where TLT is headed for,
you need big resourses, distribution chains, larger R&D , etc etc.
Building a better mousetrap that you can't get to market would indeed
be failure. Structuring the JV will be critical so that both sides win.
The only way I would like to see a buyout would be a cash/shares
offering to shareholders.. Cash, plus shares in the " Parent " Company.
Either way they go it will require some carefully thought out negotiations
with thought to future earnings being paramount. Also the patents.. Who will
hold them? Complicated process ahead and I hope TLT will if nessesary
hire some expertise in this these areas to guide the process. This could
be HUGE and we want to make sure TLT is not taken advantage of in
the structuring of a JV or buyout. JMO, I'm not an expert but I have been
around enough to see deals that work and deals that don't.
IP currently constitutes the main value of this company, especially if we attain a BTD (bigger bargaining chip). In order to better protect that IP, I'd rather see this company find a suitable out-licensing partner which would help replenish our coffers & continue to build upon our proof of concept momentum. A JV can not only be complicated, time-consuming & expensive, it will likely weaken/risk our IP rights. Licensing at least gives us upfront monies/royalties in order to further our proof of concept in other indications (Ph1 in GBM +/- NSCLC, others), which will go a long ways in maximizing value imo...hope we can ripen this tech on the vine a little more before harvesting : ).
Looking forward to obtaining that stamp of scientific viability (BTD), which will help drive economic viability considering our multiple indication potential & lack of debt. Other factors that drive our unique scientific/economic viability include our promising safety profile (often undervalued) & the fact that we could be a potentially valuable partner as a combo therapy.
Immunotherapy-driven Big Pharma will not only be losing some of their patent exclusivity soon, they are in dire need of finding a new/better dance partner. There are unique limitations to immunotherapy. A single immunotherapeutic (with a single immune target) can elicit an overly aggressive immune response, leading to multiple adverse side effects. Such a drug also attacks cancer from only one angle (by eliciting an immunogenic response rather than promoting a direct killing effect, or doing both). In order to gain efficacy, combining two different immunotherapeutics can simply compound the adverse side effects & ultimately make such a combo therapy inviable due to toxicity or non-compliance. This is where our value steps in...as possibly both a replacement & a better/safer partner, therapeutically & economically. JMO. My apologies if I'm over-preaching to the choir.
We are