I think it is a little surprising...I've read you echoing my previously expressed thoughts in the past. But whatever...
So voluntarily taking a 'safe', revenue generating, relief-providing supplement off the market to pursue a pharmaceutical version, which will likely take 5-10 years to begin to produce any revenue, if ever, is suggestive that this is a non-profit? You need to get your logic straight on this one...
While the pharmaceutical route makes sense for another stronger/better version of anatabine, it is masochistic and cruel to keep the current version off the market indefinitely, and away from people who claim to derive a significant benefit. This is particularly the case if consumers don't have the luxury of alternative treatments (drugs included). So does the company believe that anatabine, 'the supplement', works effectively, or not?
If you say that it will impede their leverage in partnerships, then they are selling out the people for the partnership. Frankly, if something works, and clinical studies continue to show the benefit, the supplement would be a boon. The money would be so good, it would likely dwarf that of a partnership or two. Now, a couple partnerships within the next 5-10 years without supplement sales...that is all risk. Risk tied even more to a complex FDA, I may add. Do you think they are difficult now? Wait 'til the bar continues to rise.
The drug version cannot be the same as the supplement version, therefore it should not compete with the supplement. If it is, then it is generally recognized as safe now, and the justification for removing it at the expense of those benefiting is problematic on a basic ethical level, for both the FDA and the company. They both must consider the implication of this.
AI
