Virgil, You really are humorous as you perform your tap dance.
Neither you or bag8ger can restrain yourself when it comes to leaping out onto the slippery slope and then jumping up and down with glee, prattling on about your interpretation of reality. Only when you realize where your words are taking you and the imminent and inexhorable results of them, do you start to backpedal as fast as your little legs will carry you. lol
You try to pretend that your original words were not serious but were 180 degrees from your original position, bag8ger drags his side of the conversation over to the cowards board and talks about 'my' scenarios, when I have never even proposed a scenario in this thread but have only tried to obtain clarification of the scenarios presented by others.
eb0783 on the other hand is the most humorous of all as he hisses and spits about 'crime club' and liars, when all that has been written has been in support of his position and the only lies told were those told by his cohorts when they dismissed his position. lol
In summary then, we have evidently abandoned all pretenses that DNAG obtained the license because they have some technology that big pharma lacks that will allow them to develop EPO when big pharma cannot. We have now decided that the reason that big pharma gave up a multi-billion dollar slam dunk blockbuster drug was because they were stupid and couldn't be bothered with it due to the huge backlog of multi-billion dollar slam dunk blockbuster drugs already in their pipeline. (A very 'reasonable' concept perhaps, to an idiot, but one that has not been made much impression on the market. lol)
We have resorted to such a premise because the show stopping implications of the previous one are so ominous and readily apparent. Because IF big pharma reached an impasse in the development of the drug. An impasse that only DNAG's technology can overcome, THEN all of the delusional suggestions of partnerships with big pharma become null and void.
BECAUSE..........(it means that) ...........DEVELOPMENT by big pharma EITHER reached the HUMAN testing stage or reached a level of testing that ASSURED that ...........there was a substantive and serious SIDE EFECT caused by the drug.
Can you say "Vioxx", can you say "Baycol".
Can you imagine anyone wanting to partner up with such a possibility, even with a '90 something' per cent accurate classifier? Can you?
regards,
frog
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
