Right which is why I go back to the partner. What most people are missing including me was well a partner pays for trials and wants royalty. RIGHT, under normal circumstances. Like the Roche INO deal.The big difference here is that Roche gave them a small amount of money in return for royalty. In Oncosec's case we will be using whomever PD-1 as part of a deal.And that sh $ t ain't free.Now it's a bigger risk for a pharma. Now they want a piece of the PIE.Think about it if roles were reversed and Oncosec was giving Imunopulse to a smaller company to try it.Would any investor be ok with saying ok here is Imunopulse here is 100 million we want royalty. .No Fn way.We want part of your company. We are in uncharted territory here imo.Because it must be the most difficult negotiation because 2 companies have 1 piece.Whoever holds both pieces will have a therapy that will be unmatched.It then leads me to believe that at the end of the trial with the PD-1 that whatever company that gives the PD-1 will buy Oncosec because I can't imagine them allowing us to have the best treatment available. But then it becomes big big money..10 billion kind of money.The whole reason why Dr Pierce is here is because he had seen a missed link in PD-1 for a long time and found it with ONCOSEC. Which by standards 1.7 million shares for a dr of his caliber is chump change not when you see what he sees...Cheers
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
