It's concerned me for some time now, that despite the science,...

It's concerned me for some time now, that despite the science, Hopper is, in fact, seen by the industry as a Skase type. There's definitely no shortage of smoke and mirrors manoeuvres. It's several decades since I worked in the marketing side of the pharmaceutical industry (bio tech was yet to come of age) and despite being highly competitive, at a certain level key figures among the major players were abreast of what the competition was up to. Are the major potential IMU suitors extremely wary? We just don't know. The science, as much as we are privy to, remains compelling. But are there other factors working against IMU? In my quieter moments I reflect on those days in the 70s where I could have picked up the phone and called someone with a simple question - "what can you tell me about Paul Hopper?"