Ann: ArTiMist Appeal Reasons For Decision, page-39

Good posts Doole - well explained

Your comment that we have nothing to sell rings true right now to the extent that we may get zero back from our massive investment (in time as well as money) in Artimist.

There is some nuance to this however, along and beyond the lines of Marg's posts.

As stated by others, artimether was a proven treatment well before we came along. The novelty that we brought to the table is the delivery and there have been many, many, many posts questioning the efficacy of that technology.

In the light of the worthlessness of our shares, this lack of faith in SUDA's fundamental product, its spray delivery has been, at times, almost palpable to the point where even I have questioned it. If the market believes it's worthless, could it be that it really is worthless?

The posts around Marg's comments remind us of the pre-existing efficacy of Artimether. My point is that Artimist has failed (to date) because our technology not only preserves the efficacy of the drug itself, but advances a delivery system which could be so effective as to have a continent-wide effect on a population's drug resistance.

Whilst this is a problem for Artimist that looks insurmountable, it's no problem for the blockbuster prescription drugs we are pursuing. It is the most massive endorsement of our technology from a non-related party that I have seen.

There are many questions to be answered about the handling of Artimist over the years, but in this latest development, as sad as it is, we have a bunch of high-level, disinterested cardigans telling the world that SUDA's oro-mucosal drug delivery system is that good that it could be a game-changer on a global level.