There is a big difference between He responded that he needs to...

There is a big difference between He responded that he needs to be careful with his announcements and talking down the sp in stating ''The expansion of Relenza capacity and any increase in resultant royalty payments, will not effect Biotas cash position until June 2010, at the earliest''

The idiot is technically correct. When he blamed the financial loss from his idiotic cooked settlement on Petter Molly, technically the idiot was correct BUT he was and still is without a moral fibre as he thought shareholders will not be aware of the $100m GSK offer which would have brought in a $80m profit had he Peter Idiot accepted the offer.

Quote GSK pays us the Relenza royalties annually in arrears on a year ending April…… We’ll receive the cash payment for royalties late in June. (Refer: page 2 http://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=00695198

Why did the idiot revealed the effect on BTA’s cash position and failed to explain it when the idiot should know the market will misinterpret it as royalty will not be booked until June 2010.

The idiot just got “more polished” in talking down the market.

Relenza’s sales have nothing to do with Peter Cook or GSK. The sales are generated by government demands as a result of Tamiflu resistance and the swine flu pandemic. In 2007 during the law suit, Relenza sales were generated through Government demanding the supply just like in this swine flu pandemic.

This is supported by :
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25823274-5017997,00.html
Quote: However, the profits from Relenza, a treatment for people who have contracted flu, are likely to pale by comparison with the money GSK could make from its new swine flu vaccine.

And: Quote: ”Global sales of the antiinfluenza medicine Tamiflu (oseltamivir) rose 203% to 1.0 billion Swiss francs in the first half-year, following the rapid worldwide spread of a new strain of influenza A/H1N1 (‘swine flu’)” and
“Responding to the current pandemic threat level, Roche and its network of manufacturing partners have scaled up Tamiflu production and by the start of 2010 will be able to supply up to 400 million packs annually, should the need arise. In addition, Roche some time ago granted sublicences to three manufacturers to produce generic oseltamivir for pandemic use in China, India and specified developing countries:”

The Tamiflu sale results and Roche’ responses show Peter Cook is a complete idiot to claim credit for Relenza sales and happy with GSK’s seriously inadequate response.
http://www.roche.com/med-cor-2009-07-23-e.pdf