"What would make B-UC disruptive? To me it’s in your post: affordable...small molecule...tablet form."
Fair enough...but to each point (out of order):
My post made it clear that there are already "Tablet form" treatments. Was that wrong? I know that at least a few of these, probably more than a few, are available in tablet form. https://www.drugs.com/condition/ulcerative-colitis.html
Assuming that it wasn't wrong: I'm not sure that it's appropriate to suggest that a B-UC tablet would be any more affordable than any of the existing tablets. Especially if it's more effective.
I'm afraid that the significance of "small molecule" is lost on me. loanranger sucks at science.
"the potential of few or no side effects" seems significant....why refer to it as a "potential"? Is it not established?
It's fashionable for companies with new products or technologies to toss around the concept of disruptive (as in IPIX's "The end goal is to disrupt the market"). It regularly exaggerates the potential of the product or service being offered: Disruptive An innovation that creates a new market by providing a different set of values, which ultimately (and unexpectedly) overtakes an existing market (e.g., the lower-priced, affordable Ford Model T, which displaced horse-drawn carriages).
I wasn't particularly surprised by the use of the term given its newfound popularity, but I don't think a B-UC pill really meets the definition, do you? That was the basis for my comment.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
