Chart, page-2763

My first suggestion to everyone is to put Sotto/Iken on ignore because they have proven time and again to be disingenuous - and are simply here as agents, to weaken hands. I think most people now realise they are the same person too.

To manufacture a theory that Bene will one day betray PAR and our supply agreement, you have to be able to paint Bene is the ultimate bad-faith actor. Readers should do a bit of background on Bene, and see if they come across as a nasty corporate citizen.

Their theory goes that PAR will only get exclusive supply for BMEL, and Bene will supply someone else for OA the moment Zilosul is approved. Such a theory aims to exploit holders potential grey areas on BMEL and OA (not to mention the depth of the Bene/PAR relationship). The truth is, only an estimated one-third of KOA doesn't have concurrent BMEL. BMEL is also a precursor to OA, meaning it can one day be treated with Zilosul before OA is even present. As BMEL often pre-exists OA, many patients are lined up for knee replacement surgery without even having OA present. Post-trauma BMEL is the largest example of this (ACL injuries or similar), but also deformities in the knee joint which cause BMEL over time, amongst other reasons. The BMEL patents are the major patents out there (current OR pending). The 1/3 of OA patients without present BMEL will, of course, demand Zilosul too - because of it's pain-management and potential DM properties. We also have seperate patents to treat anthralgia caused by alphavirus, sewing-up treatment of even more arthritic conditions using Zilosul. There is nothing to see here. Adding an OA-specific patent is just a cherry on top - an expanded patent moat, as 39KP put it - but hardly material to the downside if not realised. We're pretty much covered already, thanks.

Mozz won't mind me posting this as a small corroboration, but there is plenty of information out there:

https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/40354386/single

So, onto Bene PharmaChem. Forget patents, because this is the REAL moat for PAR. Equal to a"Composition of Matter" patent as PAR told the ASX (and us) only days ago. You don't get supply from Bene, then you're not treating human beings with PPS. Simple as that.

Bene, the ultimate bad-faith actor according to our resident pests, are going to betray PAR. Despite how reckless and damaging it would be for Bene's reputation and completely against the grain of their company (the living family legacy of the drugs inventor btw), they - according to the genuises in our midst - are going to break contract and burn 20 year old bridges with PAR - exposing themselves to tumultuous and potentially ruinous lawsuits. They have additionally set up a collaborative committee with PAR which gives PAR IP over new uses and iterations of Bene PPS.

And they will do this because they have never promised PAR anything for OA, just BMEL, right?

Well someone should tell Dr Harald Benend that because, if so, he is waaaaay off message here....