Well, I'd be more convinced to take your point if there was some overall acknowledgment of the limitations of their approach(which, as you point out, has failed to assess Ariad's potential from the start),
and, also, if every ambiquity wasn't interpreted in such a skewed fashion.
For example, what competent analyst(one who's generally familiar with the cml field) could concur for a second with the idea that Bosulif could become a preferred front-line therapy in cml? Assuming they know enough to realize how unlikely that is, you would expect more than an endorsement of such an idea(despite the minor qualification), when they should be more seriously questioning their survey methodology.
Or they're failure to acknowledge the distinct liklihood that Iclusig(Ponatinib) will surpass the 50% MMR threshold in EPIC(with eveything they should know about it's previous performance), not to mention totally ignoring it's other obvious(and very likely) applications.
In view of the above, I, apart from some sort of "make work" motivation, have to ask myself why they compiled this voluminous document at all, except as some sort of sophisticated monument to obliviousness.
And, although I will agree that it's both futile and faulty to look for conspiracies around every corner, I also believe the odds of such go up preciptously as the economic implications mount.
Therefore, since this "report" is (despite it's marginal qualifications) so negatively skewed regarding all areas of ambiguity(as well as some that are not so ambiguous), and literally billions of dollars are at stake in the cml market alone(not to mention all the other markets that are likely to be addressed by Ponatinib competitor TKIs), and, on the basis of their knowledge of the cml and biopharma market, these "analysts" had to know better,
I find it nearly impossible to believe there wasn't(in this case) some overriding agenda from the outset.
Best,
bw
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
