By MSB, page-147

I'd be very surprised if the arbiters of Biotech Deal of the Year, have any idea on the details. They would only know the headlines, just like you and me. The rest is commercially confidential.

Yes, commercial in confidence applies. Good, you get that.

Now fruitbat, here's the thing; it is not just possible to release information under controlled conditions and protect the confidentiality....

it's what confidentiality agreements are for.

They bind the parties viewing the agreements to not disclose the contents and to third parties and all kinds of dire consequences will result if they breach them.

In practical terms you apply due diligence to the people you intend to disclose to, to make sure they are trustworthy and don't have any conflict of interest.

That means they have the status of trusted parties in the first place, and then you bind them to a confidentiality agreement as well.

Happens all the time in commercial environments. Otherwise it would be pretty difficult to do all kinds of things..."I could tell you but I'd have to kill you first" type of conversations would be had, and then nothing would get done....

Sorry, but now this is explained to you, does the idea that International Biotech Licensing Deal of the Year is evaluated just by news headlines, still seem so likely to you?.

How they possibly meaningfully evaluate the different agreements?
eg. Was it a front pager, or did it get only a small byline? doesn't seem to cut it. In fact, it seems a bit absurd.

Sorry to shatter your views there, it's about how the commercial world works.

Now I am not absolutely sure that this would have happened, but we are speculating on likelihoods here. You have assumed there is no way, but I'm saying there is a way.

PS yes burn rate is a problem with ALL biotechs because FDA trials are costly...and it's standard to put that in as a risk. Analysts just cover themselves because they're not dead sure. Standard.

PPS please stop exaggerating re "heretics", "rail against" etc. It's pretty toxic to keep up this level of aggravation and you're misrepresenting the fact that I'm just giving an alternate view to the persistently negative posts of some traders in here, oh, and madamswer and your good self of course. (But I'm laughing most of the time, just so you know).