Re :
"yes I've told you that other applications have been put on the backburner while MSB chose to concentrate on getting the most lucrative to market first. It seems impossible that you've not read this before, I've mentioned it at least 25 times in the last week...are you trying to unhinge me? Surely not!? lol."
This was your response to hottuna's question about "... the 5 year old Cephalon funded Bone marrow transplant phase III trial" . This is another point where your logic is just not adding up for me.
I get the idea that you'd prioritise and cost-cut to focus on the lucrative deals, but why would you put a trial that is being run and financed by another company (Cephalon/Teva) on a back-burner? Where is the saving in doing that? I would hope there was at least some dissenting voices in the boardroom when the motion to save funds and resources by curtailing the efforts in a trial that was currently costing you less than a doughnut was put up for discussion. You may well have said it 25 times, but I am not sure it answers the question asked
Thinking about the BMT trial and Teva's continued involvement does make me wonder what you think about the possibility of success in this product given that, most recently, you have described Teva in less than flattering ways.
Perhaps if the slow but still active recruitment in this trial progresses to a conclusion n 2018, Teva will be "illogical", "a bunch of number-crunching boneheads" and a "terrific partner" all at one time, wouldn't that be something?
(20min delay)