celgene, page-49

Ok mindful as I am of @benelongs view I will stick to commenting on celgene - whether I am "all form over substance" in your eyes is not a big deal to anyone really. this is an open forum.

Here are my views on Celgene
1. Massively less significant than Teva and chf which is more advanced, better phase 2 reports no failures and a massive market with a willing partner and a dialog with the FDA
2. aghvd is not a big "blue-chip" making market imo and I am aware of an uncertain past in trials in adults
3. I have been told that there were reports at the AGM of an extension of options. I 100% believe that was said at the AGM but whether it transpires in the partnership I am less certain.
4. I listened to the ceo talk on the webcast where he talked about the discussion with celgene being around aghvd and other inflammatory conditions which is the same as the original announcement. That does not exclude the possibility of options being extended in my mind
5. I heard the ceo rule out RA in the discussion with celgene
6. I am more convinced that Celgene is interested in pursuing this partnership than I was in December 2015. If someone wants to see that as me being "wrong" in December over it simply being a case that 4 months have elapsed and Celgene are still talking which allows me to be more positive, then so be it. You can be wrong, just don't be wrong for long.
7. I have not completely ruled out the partnership talks failing but I think it very unlikely
8. If the talks where to fail I do not think it is the end of the road for msb - given point 1.