The massive question for me was why drop imyc to pivot to platform, only to now pivot to eye drug, which it appears will take just as long to get to clinic, yet if imyc was chosen surely there would be greater commercial interest. I assume the idea is commercial interest is in the ASO platform rather than the drug itself. The problem seems to be with the platform approach we are looking for someone to pay huge ongoing fees for access. If we produce stunning results then maybe a major pharma will see the benefit and pay up, but the only suitors would have to be major pharma, as another small company like ourselves could not pay. I assume that is why we bever collaborated with Dr Soucek on omomyc when they seemed to just need cell penetration. I guess the reason the directors bought in is the sort of deals being done with the likes of peptidream or whoever else, but obviously they must be doing something we are not. As always the bottom line is we as holders have no idea if anyone's following closely on the verge of signing a deal, or if we are on our own desperately trying to at least generate some commercial interest. Its hard as i guess everything is top secret until a deal is actually signed. I would like to go to one of these meetings just to ask face to face is anyone interested in what we are doing. To some degree mr Hayes resigning says no?
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)