Webinar - 6.30am tomorrow, page-69

@Hogana123
I mean if it was because they didn't have enough promise with Zilosul, I would say don't do it, but since it's such a cheap company and in my simple mind, it would made a good complementary drug, I wouldn't have a problem if they acquired it and parked it. What ever gets the attention 100% on PAR, and offers additional future development beyond iPPS, once we have juiced that orange. Nothing for NSB is in Phase 1, so we could literally put it in the bottom draw as a cheap future drug to develop and test in combo with Zilosul. Again, I am just a random voice with confident opinions that can probably easily be cut to shreds by smarter people who actually know what they are talking about haha.

@garyric
Tough question. IMU gets me more excited, as they have so much more in the near term for news, and I think a therapy for potentially all solid tumors is ground breaking stuff. PAR gets me excited for the market potential, as it's absolutely huge. I literally have an uncle in law going to see a doctor today, potentially to discuss a knee replacement, because Zilosul isn't easily available yet and is not a first line treatment for OA. The moment I said it's currently approved for Dogs and Horses but doing human trials, his eyes glazed over haha. So in short, I think they have equal potential as I think the $400b solid tumor market is going to be up for grabs with IMU, but I think the OA market has the potential to reach that scale as more of the middle class grows, and a new alternative and hopefully prophylactic appears in the form of Zilosul to help the 12.5% of Australians, and the rest of the world who suffer from OA.