Industry news, page-351

From my limited vantage point, I can see EMD RWD advancing the process of CBD schedule 3 or over the counter type medications gaining approval. Beyond that, I think they plan to leverage their data in their internal process of determining what indications to target, and at what dosages.

I agree with everyone here who has said that beyond this, their hype is vague. They've drummed up enthusiasm over the potential time and money saved in determining dosage via their data rather than traditional trial work, and then more generally, over RWD as a buzzword. They're pitching the potential for multiple indication discovery, but to me that's a bit like mining a gold field folks have already been over a few times: the molecules they are looking at either identical or very close to molecules many others are investigating, and the clear advantage for IHL is that they have identified 6 indications, obtained either positive pre-clinical or clinical trial results for five out of six of them, and have gained or are gaining a level of intellectual property protection for 4 (and perhaps 5) of them that outstrips anything EMD has achieved. Let's remember that not all patents hold the promise of equal protection in the case of infringement. If you feel your invention is being infringed upon, a patent only gives you a course of legal action. That's when your patent comes under real scrutiny and the particulars of the situation are weighed. Incannex has garnered 'novel and inventive' indication from the International Searching Authority for at least IHL-216, IHL-675a (3 indications), and has filed for IHL-42x.

@DaveFisher - I agree the de-risking to date of IHL's programs via the traditional route is what justifies our market cap. Vis-à-vis EMD, for now I consider the uncertainty of if/how RWD will be integrated into regulatory body frameworks... a mile too far. They still will have the regular uncertainty of requiring positive results to the trials they do end up conducting, so this additional reliance on a regulatory methodology that is in its infancy represents an unacceptable level of risk for me. I might miss out on a good thing as a result, but that's my comfort zone.

Good luck to all, and of course, do your own research before even considering walking off a cliff with me.