If MSB is to return to $10..., page-43

It might have meant that MSB could have been at a point of self-sustaining commercialisation today, instead of starting down into the possible fiscal abyss.

Sorry but if you peel back the qualifying words in here is there any actual point being made?

I see none. Except that it would have been nice if MSB had gone to market earlier. Is this worth stating?

Self sustaining commercialisation?
Is this the correct model to use with biotechs? (let alone a biotech with world leading technology)

Surely a joint venture with a big pharma like Celgene will obliterate the problem. This is looking more likely not less likely.

But we get might have beens, and maybes and possibles.

I prefer at looking at logical deductions and commercial realities as apply to the biotech sphere, and as a apply to the facts that MSB has:

- a draw down facility to finance FDA testing as a fall back position in view of ongoing negotiations with Celgene, big pharma which is likely to be interested in CHF, along with the suite of other applications, which it asked to have extended last year
- 100% ownership of CHF
- more efficacy with the mapping and cell delivery system
- improved patient recruitment for the stage 3 FDA clinical trials
- accelerated approval of CHF in Japan, relying on stage 2 FDA clinical trials (pending a small local trial)
- world leader in the stem cell space with multiple applications, and families of patents.

There is more, but those are some key features of where we are currently at as I see it. For some reason some posters want to deflect from this...