tamiflu ineffective against strain in japan, page-2

Port,
It is not the Good news you spruiked it to be.

Relenza is not only superior to Tamiflu. It also beat Tamiflu to market. This ironically highlights the failures of the management team and the stupidity of settling the GSK law suit at a great loss.

Relenza sales to the seasonal flu market is close to zero and is not likely to change. Why?
1.GSK are more interested to sell their flu vaccine instead of selling Relenza.
2. GSK had destroyed the seasonal flu market for Relenza during the law suit through informing the market all the negative Relenza issues.
3.The medical profession is recommending the use of older drugs to treat Tamiflu resistance strain. These older drugs and their generic counterpart such as RIMANTINE are much cheaper than Relenza,

The article you selectively quoted to spruik Relenza also states:

“Researchers DID NOT find Tamiflu-resistance among patients with Hong Kong-A and B-type influenza.

“Drug resistance is limited to the Soviet-A strain, there is NO NEED TO REVIEW OUR RESPONSE to the new type of influenza,” a Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry representative said. “Vaccines are thought to be effective against drug-resistance viruses. There is NO NEED to be overly anxious.”

The fundamentals in BTA has not change. On the other hand, Peter Cook’s wealth creation skills so convincingly proven at Orbital Engine continue to be display with finesse in BTA where:
1.Peter Cook had taken his skill to an artform by using share brokers’ reports to spruik the company.
2.The Chairman misled many shareholders by stating he will use proxy votes to vote Dr??? to the board and changing the rules at the last minute.
3. Ballooning executive remunerations including appointing a good mate to the board.
4.Showering Peter Cook with LTIOs in complete contempt for shareholders who voted down the resolution at the AGM.
5.Engaged Bond Street Custodians Ltd in BTA shares buyback to be held in trusts for Peter Cook.

The legality of the share buyback is questionable. Even if it is legal, it is highly immoral and contemptuous. Why should BTA spend shareholders fund buying shares when the shares are only to be vested upon achieving un-revealed performance hurdles and BTA could issue new shares at that time. Is the cooked buyback scheme designed so as not to inform the market of the volume and price of the buyback? One has to question why daily changes from the shares buyback as the Bond Street Custodian are directly related to Peter Cook’s interests.

The cash balance must be dwindling fast with the balloning executive remunerations and immoral share buyback.