Ann: Extension for Voluntary Suspension, page-249

Just to clarify @Iceman. I am not accusing you of bullying although following me into another stock and asking me to explain why I am for the management of one, and apparently against management of another, is a bit borderline. Especially as it's complex.

I take each situation on the merits.

And I don't argue that it's normal for a purchaser to entirely ignore what's in the patient's best interest and what's in the hospital's best interest LT.

It's just that such things occur. It's a risk, sure it is. BUT you'd imagine, as I'm sure that ADO executives imagined, that a product that is light years better than the competition, wouldn't have that kind of headwind in a significant way.

The lack of takeup would, you'd expect, happen more readily when there is less difference in efficacy between the products.

This one flies in the face of logic. And no, I think it's entirely understandable that this was not forseen by AHZ management.

Those are stupid purchasing decisions. Stupidity is often underestimated by the highly intelligent (and at the risk of sounding sycophantic I'd include WP and the Chairman in the latter category), I guess we ALL could forsee that, but it's a question of degree. ie. how much is the issue.

Let's be fair about this, ok?

PS happy to discuss the other stock in detail in another time and place. The differences are radical between these stocks. Because the barrier to uptake (regulatory cost) was quantifiable AND KNOWN by management of that other stock. But that's only one factor, there are plenty of others.