You have the link by now.
I'm listening but skipping ahead regularly. Stopped for this:
At 41 minutes, while discussing the past attempt to discover an HIV candidate and after a lengthy babble about how great FluCide was, Seymour says "Let's look at HIV.....we were much more effective than the heart therapy....the standard anti-viral therapy....the problem is that you need about 100 million dollars to do a clinical trial." Proceeding to explain that they couldn't be competitive with big pharma because of their funding advantage. "There was no way that you could compete against that." He directs attention to a slide, "Look at the effectiveness here in terms of our drug as opposed to the cocktail". Then "We just didn't have the money to go and do the trials".
Obviously they must have known that when they first decided "Let's look at HIV" and then proceeded to blow through a bunch of pre-clinical money.
If I held shares this one example, one of many that could be provided, would turn my stomach...even as a non-investor it makes me queasy. It's basically an admission that this company began a project...it goes without saying that all the "work" was done by Diwan's TheraCour at the agreed upon rate...with the full knowledge that it couldn't and wouldn't be completed.
But that was then....you would think that things might be different now. That a lesson might have been learned. (Some decades ago my Dad used to regularly remind me at dinner that I shouldn't bite off more than I could true....it's truly a childish mistake.)
So I ask...what has changed. IF this was ever true, is it still true?
"the problem is that you need about 100 million dollars to do a clinical trial"
And if it is, at what point can we expect to hear this?
"We just didn't have the money to go and do the trials."
A response to this question might be "Seymour is known to use a little hyperbole to emphasize an issue and shingles isn't HIV". But those things miss the point. Apart from the fact that the company has an acknowledged cash problem which is likely to be a problem even if that hyperbolic statement was off by a factor of 3 or 4, the fact is that the company has never started a clinical trial in spite of many assertions like this one..."we were much more effective than the ________ therapy....the standard anti-viral therapy". Without clinical trials such statements have little real support and what's worse, little financial value to the owners of the company.
So the question is, what's different this time?
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
