General discussion, page-16192

You were not making this argument in the post I initially responded to, but since you are making it in my direction now, I'm happy to respond.

Again, it is not 'IHL veterans' arguing not all patients are willing to get anaesthesia and be cut open. It is doctors following the Hippocratic oath, AND patients themselves agreeing to first explore non invasive options. So you've fundamentally misunderstood that far from mere claims by 'IHL veterans', that first item is simply a reflection of what is going on in the real world.

As for the second item that you somehow wish to contrive as being confounding for 'IHL veterans', nobody here has tried to argue every single person with PTSD is going to want or afford the treatment in the early days. You're using a straw man argument here. What I HAVE seen folks opine here is that for PTSD sufferers who have not found relief anywhere else, 30k is probably not a crazy sum to pay to get one's life back if one has the money. It will eventually also make good economic sense for this to be covered by the government once the treatment becomes well established. We've even had a PTSD sufferer show up here and express that feeling. Personally, if I suffered from something that debilitating and had the money, I'd spend it: wouldn't you? The claim is not that the market will immediately be huge, but it certainly will grow if the treatments prove life-changing for enough people and doctors and regulators become progressively more comfortable with the treatment. What matters is supply and demand. And yes, companies are anticipating there is the need for many more clinics in Australia to meet the demand over the coming years. That's what you should be arguing against if you disagree, preferably with facts and figures to back up your contention... it is puzzling to me that you constantly want to make this about 'IHL veterans' when you really should be just factually trying to make your points against the business plan advanced by the company.

Psychedelic clinics are a nascent industry. Either you understand the potential market size of this nascent industry, or you don't. If you do, to maintain a bearish posture and be credible, you have to argue why the holder of one of the first therapy IPs on good track towards approval, is mistaken to boldly take a stake in the clinic business to deliver psychedelic therapies including their own. Incannex doesn't have to be the biggest clinic business in the world: remember, they just have to be profitable in the delivery of clinical services, in order for this move to be justified.

Mounting a fictitious opposition between the bullishness of a broad market for IHL42x, and the bullishness of an initially more niche market for psilocybin assisted psychotherapy, is just silly. Especially since your overall point seems to have been to be bearish on BOTH. You're all over the place, mate. Now you're even praising the company because you say you feel you couldn't prevail bashing it. Not sure what's going on with you.