I think most people are aware of long time frames to bring new...

I think most people are aware of long time frames to bring new treatments to market , and I've seen comments from posters dismissing IMU's potential because of such long time frames .

There are X 2 things that are worth noting ...and in very simplistic terms

a) Fast tracking Potential Treatments. Sometimes new treatments can be fast tracked IF it is thought( by the relevant regulators ) that those treatments might be effective in dealing with conditions, which there is not already an effective " Standard of care " drug available

( a lot more can be said on this subject but wont attempt that here ...and there have been some recent and very informative posts on the subject - particularly after the stunning results ref C33 / Vaxinia of 2 weeks ago )

b) Existing sellers / providers of some of the Big Ticket ( accepted SoC remedies ) enjoy massive cash flows from these drugs ( not to mention the auxiliary costs of administering etc etc ) . Those cash flows are vulnerable to newer and better remedies coming on streams.

So the monetization component may have nothing to do with actually bringing the drug to market ....but rather the perception of the possible value of the IP behind a potential new remedy.

Imaging IF the next round of observed effects in Vaxinia for instance ( at higher doses ) so even better progress than what was recently reported .

I'll let others speculate on that .

Meanwhile the critics who place little value of where IMU are at right now clearly dont understand how IP can be valued & hence the many brainless comment's to that effect