@Mozzarc (sorry it won’t let me quote your reply for some...

@Mozzarc (sorry it won’t let me quote your reply for some reason) I have nothing but respect for you mate. You seem like a lovely earnest bloke and your passion for the potential of this drug is admirable. However, it carries you into a similar passion for the company itself, and that’s something i’m wary of. The drug is not the company. The virtues of the drug will not make up for any serious fractures in the value proposition to partners, and that includes IP, how watertight the supply agreement is, the frailties of PAR management, and a lot more. Sometimes I disagree with conclusions you make, and this is just one of those times. In my opinion, kicking the partnership can down the road any further is just going to be extremely harmful now. They’ve got to close *something* with a partner once IND opens. It doesn’t have to fund the whole lot, and it doesn’t have to involve the ‘crown jewels’ territories, but we are long overdue proof-positive that PARs partnership strategy is sound, and based on some reality. At this point, a confirmed deal is required before we consider giving up more of the company to anyone for pittances. A deal is by so far the better next strategic step for PAR, that any patched-together alternative funding package will be, rightfully, regarded by the market as evidence that PAR are simply failing (and quite possibly entirely unable) to sell this to Big Pharma, Mid Pharma, or any other Pharma. The company will be cruelly punished on market again, and weakened even further if it does that.