bubbles, page-131

Boobytrap for makattack. Obviously he is much more above this.
Now let me speak to you for a second regarding this. My concern is Why have we never sought to independently validate this technology ? Is it because our technology is too generic. Surges already seems to mention this above.
However for the sake of an average investor - Link .


There was only one single independent validation of our technology conducted.
Interestingly, the US study results at Azopharma, a company subsequently disappearing from the horizon, were done for an FMCG which has in 2011 discontinued to update regarding the OBJ partnership and we must assume that the collaboration has ended or hit hibernation status.

In 2008, OBJ advised the market that it had entered into an agreement with a major International FMCG to evaluate OBJ's two main technologies and has engaged Azopharma Contact Services Inc as an Independent Contract Research Organisation ( CRO ) to undertake the formulation and evaluation phases.


The Azopharma results then conclude the following ( even though OBJ was restricted any information regarding the drug tested ) :

The developed patch system effectively fluxes approximately
a 10-fold over the existing product comparatively.

The development work to this point justifies proof-of-concept of the formulation and technology to proceed further into a pharmaceutical development of a drug product


Only to be never heard of again ....2011 after consumer acceptance studies of the same product.



Now where do OBJ holders currently take the risk averse certainty from to claim that the P&G product development is a done deal?

A done deal would have seen milestone payments, as I often reiterated.





The FMCG progress in 2009 was leading to the most promising product development outlook for OBJ at the time.
That collaboration has ended and the testing company has folded.


The other main interest in 2010 then was GSK which was the reason for many holders to stay invested in OBJ.
OBJ was forced at the height of the 2010 rally to clarify that the development stage with GSK as indeed non material in nature.



We have been there a few times, what makes P&G so different this time around?

Exclusivity was demanded by previous partners, agreements were signed with all of them, none of them ever committed to financial statements towards OBJ.

It all boils down to the newest wording within the latst update : initial license agreement.

A license deal is factually a financial deal, therefore the initial license agreement currently presented by OBJ, which lacks any financial reference, is non financial in nature and should be viewed as such.