Nah, I agree firmly with Denial.Yes we do need to see what the...

Nah, I agree firmly with Denial.

Yes we do need to see what the FDA comes back with...but even if they are conservative...I also don't see the trial costs blowing out too much overall. There are areas where costs can be further reduced if it comes to that.

We have some incredible data in all three programs, 005, 008 and even 002.

Safety, Pain & Function and then the incredibles; DM, Structural, Biomarkers...now add all the Patient feelings via PGIC and Rescue, KOL statements and the like. Peer reviews.

It's just too compelling.

SS in both 005 and 008 will make them think, a lot...the Statistical Analytical plan will be carefully looked at in my opinion. Its just unethical to have n too great.


Weazel and a few others aren't wrong to suggest that we don't have a deal and we have no news on funds. But Denial is also correct that PAR have this as their number one focus. The data, the FDA acceptance will be the start. I believe this will eventually trigger some sort of funding arrangement. Once our costs and our timelines are crystal clear, this task will be made a lot easier.

Matt and Scott are supreme forces in themselves...the deals and operations these guys have put together in the past...it's the ultimate endorsement. Would they take such a risk if we were little to no chance? The DD they have done and are doing...its testament to the extreme utility of the drug. They have the skill set to turn us around, sharply.

I'd still be ok if that were all, but it so isn't...TGA...mate...I will have more to say on this topic later on...it's such a fire starter in a good way. Get this started successfully and we will have further validation.

The DM connotations are too strong for NO ONE to back us at all, I can't see it. Glass half full? Maybe perhaps. They backed in Tanezumab to the hilt 11 years ago...we are so much more down the track. What DM did they have, BML resolutions, no way. Cartilage Vol increase...nothing...and what about Synovial inflammation reduction? Do I need to mention Bone Spurs and positively affecting multiple joints simultaneously? Hellllloooo NGF while NOT being an immunosuppressant? Tanezumab is nothing before us.

WHY hasn't a BP taken a stake yet then?

We are still too small...we are still unproven without revenue or at least imminent revenue...we still don't have the (last stage) P3 started...and yes, funding is still pending. Who are we? Some Aussie outfit with a market cap of nothing (in US dollars....ok Euro then)...we need data at scale...we need data overseas...we prob need broader data...(duration and DM endpoints added perhaps). These are all factors...a lot are mandated not to be able to take a stake yet...to even decently offer yet. In truth we need these milestones and determinations to be done first..then get funded...then progress and then the fun stuff...my views. Getting a deal for us (Eg Regional) wouldn't be a fair one, yet...get our market cap up and have the certainty of that last phase and it's all of a sudden, a different story.

Remember the quick pivots...Sirtex is the first that comes to mind for me $7 to $41 in 18 months. A drug with a runway not even 100^th of ours, failed it's primary and had really terrible management.

Remember, I've never ever said there is NO risk..I just see it as eventually diminishing risk subject to FDA...maybe I'm too enthusiastic (I don't think so, my opinions), we need to wait and see.

There are many things to come here, I agree funding is absolutely pivotal..but lets see the steps, the incremental hurdles pass before we judge ultimately.
I don't think we are far away from some really pivotal meaningful targets.


Not advice