Share
466 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 76
clock Created with Sketch.
21/08/21
09:24
Share
Originally posted by Rhino1963
↑
I can understand your perspective...
ALL IMO
Apologies if some of the statements made here are no 100% accurate facts.
...but that is not the point of this post...
I once worked for Digital, the second largest computer company in the world.
Digital's founder, Ken Olsen, was considered one of the entrepreneurs of the 20th century.
In the late 80s Ken decided "UNIX was Disallowed and PCs would not amount to much" or something along those lines.
Not too many years later Digital was bought out by Compaq, a PC company, which was eventually bought out by HP!
Whilst the facts maybe a little hazy, the point is Ken missed the opportunity in front of him.
Doesn't make Ken a bad person.
There are 100,000s of people around the world, like myself, that had a fabulous experience
The investment in educational training of staff was fabulous.
Some of which, I still carry with me today.
ALL IMO
In the case of Mr Molloy it appears to prove the theory of relativity in a non physical sense.
e.g. where you stand (in this case education and experience) alters what you see.
Molloy came with a pre-meditated game plan to re-prove Bisantrene for AML and sell it.
It appears he wasn't looking for the other opportunities or simply didn't want too.
It was a quick solution to millions of dollars payout.
..and it seems it would have worked.
Molloy's view of what could happen was relative to his education and experiences.
Along comes another (Dr T.) who was standing in a different place relative to Molloy.
Dr T saw the potential outcome for Bisantrene very differently (different education and different experiences).
i.e. RAC pivots to a 5 Pathway Strategy
Then last year the City of Hope released a game changer study on FTO.
We are lucky Dr T's education and experience allowed him to pivot RAC once again to 3 pillars
How could this all happen?
Well perhaps part of the answer is that in the late 80s and early 90s Oncology treatment was the dosage of a single drug. AML was only but a small commercial market (minimal revenue) in the oncology space. Bisantrene was only considered a drug for AML and was perhaps not first in class with other drug treatments i.e. Bisantrene was perhaps pigeon holed and the AML market would not generate enough revenue to support its cost to keep it in market. ...and during the merger and acquisitions of the owner companies the drug was ignored.
It was only relatively recent oncology (circa 2015) that chemo drug combinations were being used.
This changed opportunities and revenue potential for Bisantrene.
Dr T saw it as more than just an AML treatment.
Now you may argue to the contrary as is your right.
I just see that as you standing (education and experiences) in a different place relative to me on the subject and therefore we see things differently.
The fact of the matter is RAC and Bisantrene is where it is today.
For me, that is treatment of AML, Breast and Ovarian Cancers
First in class and best in class for inhibiting FTO
BTW, I don't understand the science but the business case is not lost on me
None of this is a bad thing, it is just how we all observe the world.
We all have these experiences everyday in our lives when we see things differently to someone else.
Reminds me of an old boss and good friend who says "our perception is our reality"
Invest or not invest the choice is yours.
It makes no difference to my view of RAC and the business case I see.
Good luck to you.
Expand
I have started and sold a couple of businesses over the years, mainly to do with Data Centre infrastructure and I visited the Rhodes facility for many years as a supplier to Digital, Compaq and HP but not so much over the last few years.
Your post also reminded me of something that a smart person said to me many years ago when I was complaining to him that my boss at the time thought very differently to me and that was "if there are 2 people in the room and they both think exactly the same then one of them might be superfluous and not needed".
At the time and to this day, I believe they were and continue to be wise words as long as you keep them in context of course, because 2 people thinking differently on everything also brings it own level of problems.