@stanjupiter,
Parts of your post contains the kind of balance that I think serves MSB followers far better than the unbridled and unquestioning fawning that appears to pervade this forum.
For, some people talk not like MSB is a company that is researching a new ground-breaking technology to see if it works, but like it has already succeeded in its quest, and is now just going through the motions of waiting for the riches to start rolling in.
So part of what you say is right: "
there is no guarantee that MSB makes it" and "
there are risks to investing at this stage".
Which is totally different an investment position to the more emphatic "The science definitely works" and "MSB has what big pharma badly wants".
But when you say that I have "
removed a word from its context and used it to paint a broad picture of failure", I'm afraid that's either a misinterpretation or an inaccurate conclusion on your part.
For what I was saying is that MSB has significant potential if its trials are successful.
But that success is by no means assured.
This is really no different to what you just posted.
As for, "
You have made a thread with it (the word "potential") in the title to pass the brush over MSB's prospective partner", well how would you describe Mallinckrodt in relation to MSB?
A "possible" partner?
A "likely" partner?
Not a "probable" or an "imminent" partner, surely?
I'm not sure what more accurate a descriptor than "potential partner" could be used.
Finally, to your inference of "
....from your writing that MSB's inability so far to find a partner is somehow a reflection of its quality."
Not at all. Because I am not sufficiently qualified nor experienced to do so, I never form definitive judgments about MSB's technical quality. So I defer to others in this regard.
All I am doing is questioning the disconnect between all the great many positive things that some MSB followers say about the technical aspects of the company, and the absence of partners to date.
Don't you also see a disconnect there?
(20min delay)