Hi Upthefog, I would beg to differ. I would suggest that...

Hi Upthefog, I would beg to differ.
I would suggest that everything is about the science, particularly about successful results, because a deal would or will be framed around potential revenues and profitability.
A deal before the science is proven would result with a likely diminished outcome, although it could be possible to obtain a deal pre-results that was lower front end with a respectful backend return, given success.
Any deal is based on potential numbers, and that deal is relative to the potential market, and all that is based on our potential and likely reach into that market, and that can only truly be ascertained with confidence the science involved in relation to those markets, is valid.
Theoretically a deal after the 6 month {successful} results would be strongest, front and back end.

This is currently re ATL-1102 for DMD.
ATL-1102 for all other therapeutics etc, ie inflammation and so on, will definitely benefit from more science, the Tox study, because it looks like DMD has an efficacy at well under 200 mg and quite possibly in the range of 25 to 50,which our current trial if successful will be taking to the FDA.
Other treatments than DMD would most like be more appealing to regulators and suitors if the tox studies clarifies there is no problem with virus activation.{and i have never been convinced that this problem was relevant to ATL-1102}

So yes, a deal is what ultimately shapes an initial rerate of the share price {where it goes after that is unknown}, but that deal is also ultimately designed around the science and how it can be turned into revenue, and further, into profit, and for how long.

And, this is what the suitors will take into account, but in relation to other comments in this thread, so will our side, the Board and institutional investors.