Sold again??, page-23

You and Sojourner seem pretty clueless when it comes to what you refer to as "cash burn". You are fundamentally making the case to stay with burns and Australia, a country that's had this technology for some time now and done virtually nothing with it. How soon do you think Avita would become profitable sticking with that plan? I'll tell you when...never.
Without entering the US market they'd be toast, period. And what's it take to enter US pharmaceutical market? FDA approval, a time consuming and expensive process. With BARDA funding , a US agency, they have an approved product and market for burns. They have made tremendous strides in establishing that market in just a year and a half since launch, in the middle of a pandemic I might add. They have patents that extend out for 10-12 years. There are at least 5 more applications for Recell, all requiring FDA approval process. If they opt for profitability over multiple income streams as you seem to want, their patents will have expired by the time they get their 4th product approved. They currently are in the middle of a product launch and 3 separate FDA trials for new applications, which costs money. By having an approved device and application approval for those other applications has been greatly derisked under a PMA application, no NDA required. If you don't like the idea of top line driving bottom line then you shouldn't own the stock. To me it's the only way to go here. All investments come with risk and growth stocks always carry more. You might want to take a look at Merck, Proctor and Gamble or others. Really wish everyone well in their investing.