Thanks for the kind words. We have certainly been working on...

Thanks for the kind words. We have certainly been working on making the Race "story" simpler and easier to understand. This is not easy especially when you could talk for a week non-stop about bisantrene and Race without covering the same topic twice.

Couple of minor corrections and comments

1. Triangle Insights were not paid to value Race, but to identify the best market for bisantrene and what properties would be important for physician take-up and most importantly payor support. There is no point developing a new drug that no insurance company will allow the doctors to use. We asked Triangle to help us know what clinical data we need to generate to achieve payor support. The key discovery was you need to show both anticancer and cardioprotection.

2. Applying a 50% haircut to any model is common in the pharma industry especially by big pharma in negotiations over acquisitions. There is no logical reason for it, but we should point this out to anyone using the Triangle report for doing their own valuation models (you are all doing this right, right?)

3. Nothing in biotech is certain. The practical difference between 80% and 100% is minor in valuing Race. Better to err on the side of caution.

4. Don't think of investing in biotech as railroad journey to a single destination, but a holiday drive in the countryside. You don't have to remain invested until approval or sale, you can stop and get out and have a picnic whenever and wherever you want. If we do our job well the value of Race will continue to rise as we advance bisantrene and you can sell out whenever you feel you have met your investment goal. The only person who really has to worry about a sale of bisantrene to big pharma is me (Dr T).