Does the science lose relevance?, page-10

A lot of people have been injected with CU64 and CU67 across multiple trials over multiple years. Also, Louise Emmett - a world leader in her field - is injecting it into 50 of her patients. So it think its safe to believe in the sarcophagus. The multiple light ups which were not biopsied had to be categorised as false positives (because it was unethical to test all of them), but I'm not aware that there were many biopsied that came back as false positives.

Yup. This is a Clarity discussion board, not a general message board about the science of treating prostate cancer. So yes, I mean does the science lose relevance for Clarity (ie, are other factors more impactful on Clarity's value, particularly over the next 12-18 months).

I know where you're coming from and have called that out in the past, but:

When it looked like Clarity would be generating revenue in 2025 or 2026 at the latest, and at a time where apparently less advanced / less scientifically attractive companies were being acquired by BP for north of AU$3b, Clarity went on its tear.

Now that its clear Clarity won't be able to generate revenue until (probably) 2028 - which reduces takeover pressure on BP - and when it would appear that in the order of a further $200m will be required over the next couple of years to progress CLARIFY, AMPLIFY and SECURE against a market cap of $600m, Clarity's SP has collapsed.

Maybe this time the narrative is driving the price?

Also, what happens if the SP drops through the blue line?