I’ve reread the transcripts from some of GTC’s old CC’s to get a feel for when the company’s interest in the CABG indication was reignited. Clearly, it happened during the past two years: as of Aug 2006, CABG did not even warrant a mention in the following exchange from the 2Q06 CC (#msg-12468464):
>> Roy Friedman: [In] the U.S., at what point does GTC start thinking about an acquired-deficiency indication and is there a strong case to be made for hedging the Company's bets by selecting an indication other than DIC/sepsis?
Dr. Geoffrey Cox: Clearly, we could initiate further studies and other indications. We've talked in the past about burns, and severe burns remains an interesting area for us. I just think at this juncture we still have to be quite cautious about the cost of investment in these clinical studies, and I think certainly for the next year or so we would like to see the outcome of the DIC study before we kick off a range of other indications. <<
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”