Agree. Anyone can look at the success probability of any drug development and see that the average is extremely low. Always massive risk vs massive reward in pharma space, especially OTC.
It is valuable to hear input from a historical perspective, so any tidbits to consider positive or negative should always be welcome. From a cursory look, it appears they have been working on addressing these unmet pharma needs for a decade. Lack of funding and failure is expected and looks to be experienced historically.
IMO, I see two very plausible and positive paths they are currently on.
In regards to OSA, I think newer technology related to nanotech and controlled release is logically more likely to help overcome the past trials where it appears the path was correct, but ability to get to finish line more than uncertain to unlock the investment risk. It appears the new approach makes more sense and is much more possible for success. Couple it with some improved financing options in place, I think they are on to something. I think everyone would be curious as to a status update of that program.
In regards to Epilepsy/Pain candidate drug. All the DD, whether interviews, independent publications or commentary appears extremely enthusiastic and optimistic. Clearing the NIH hurdles in presumably robust preclinicals is more than promising. Considering the opioid crisis and national headlines, and the current progress in the NIH program, one can imagine the possibilities here far exceed historical comparable OTC pharmas.
IMO, the speculative value is much much higher than current reflections in the market so I will accumulate over time.
