Hi notrealgoodatthis, Thank you for your kind comments in your...

Hi notrealgoodatthis,
Thank you for your kind comments in your post!


When comparing time schedules from other biotechs, I would have to conclude that we are spot on in terms of testing regimes and schedules, boxes ticked and evaluations needed to progress towards implementation of innovating global drug deliveries.


First thing to consider is that global players are slow moving and tied up in actual contracts.
If innovations are deemed interesting, one doesnt just snap them up and innovate along.
The contracts in place for current delivery systems will have to run out first or allow additional deliveries complimenting the pipeline, therefore fitting neatly and effortlessly within existing delivery parameters.

Secondly, there are no shortcuts in healthcare related innovations. They MUST go along all the regulatory hurdles and internal testing, evaluation cycles and PASS every single one.
The possibility of failure due to one single left out step would be desastrous for a global pharma and would put their reputation on the line.
When lining up the anns of the last 3 years, one can see a continuous development towards license deal in the making.

Thirdly, I dont know how many clinical trials I have seen fail in stage 3 when years already have been spent on that testing regime and particular drug.
It shows that even though it is all promising, it will have to pass every single step to be able to be implemented.
Luckily, we do not invest in a new drug, we invest into a delivering system of already approved drugs.


And last but really not least, the drugs which might be used for our patches are representing corner stone revenue providers for global players in the billions of dollars.
A failed innovative delivery method would put into question the viability and effectiveness of the whole program and pipeline.
We had discussed here some time back a few illustrating examples of drugs which had to be pulled from market and what that did to the respective companies which owned the patents and licenses.



I feel for you and understand your frustration.
But I would suggest to approach the topic with a cool head and take to heart some of amg's comments regarding the capping process.

Nobody caps a share to this extend if it wouldnt be worth it.
This HAS to have a purpose and only further solidifies my belief to be onto a winner here.