To further my point, big pharma is just like all of us investors, except they have way more to gain.
If we are saying that Big Pharma invests in this like retail investors, then the part about them still not investing in this like we already have, is baffling. I suggest that big Pharma was interested in retail investors taking on all of the risk exposure up until January 2021, and even now the claim that big Pharma has “way more to gain” only happens if they see themselves being able to get this platform to a place of commercialization before patents run out. In addition, they would much rather be dealing with an entity that is closely held rather than publicly traded, because they too now deal with intermediaries (L/J + Cncd) that don’t always smooth new partnerships.
If you think immune protection technology is so important, then why did you buy into the company before it was ready? Why can't big pharma get involved for that exact same reason?
I’ll start with answering the second question first. I have stated on this forum that should we get to a place where immune protection is shown to be viable in conjunction with the platform, the market will respond with valuations at multiples higher than we are at today. But again, that risk and exposure to exactly when viability is achieved - no harmful immune-suppressants required - may mean we are holders of a great platform that doesn’t actually capture the diabetes market because we are too late to market (hemo and thyroid then become our real hope). This company went out and got islets through UHN and conformal coatings, but where is the cash needed to put this all together? Is $30 mil enough? Nuh-uh.
I bought in because I knew a platform that kept cells alive was just as important as coatings around cells or an ample supply of cells. I’m not sure what will cause big Pharma to get involved, but my guess is those that make those decisions see way more potential potholes than what I saw, meaning they’d NEVER get in for the same reason I have. And some now on our BOD may be the ones telling Pharma to hold their $$$ as leverage, for the big bill of confirming the efficacy prior to transplanting everyone without the need for drugs. The idea that we (now) have people who “know each other from other lives” cuts both ways (I’m afraid in a selfie kind of way).
You can't respond because everything you say I easily poke holes through like swiss cheese.
I happen to be a big fan of Swiss cheese except for when someone uses it first as their love toy. You know what they say…the hole size tells us a lot about the calibre of the probe…
This comment sounded like someone who started out trying to show up inconsistencies in logic (fine) and then part way through, began to sense a threat that others on here who have some serious reservations about what happens in the next 3 months (we’re way past waiting another 1-2 years) might just be right about not blindly accepting the CEO/BOD direction taken since this year began. I’d suggest that if you want to be taken seriously that you keep your “Poker” comments closely held.
Just delete your account bud, you bring no value to the conversation
I’ve heard conversational value can be measured by ones ability to see two sides of a problem at the same time - before they speak. Praise where due, criticism where appropriate. Then there’s the “ignore” function. Oddly enough, even those who I strongly disagree with on here, I still read what they have to say because just about everything from conspiracy theories to naivet still holds a bit of truth. Your back of the napkin assumptions were fine (if a little crude/light). You have your valuations. Big Pharma once again uses models of a much greater sophistication. Let’s hope that the horses we bet on are more sophisticated than the folks who might want to take us out. Otherwise yours, mine and many other’s recent gains will be deleted in short order.
DF