InvestorsHub Logo

Poor Man -

06/27/22 10:51 PM

#490646 RE: Hopeforthefuture3 #490638

I suspect the journal article is either a trigger for some kind of agreement(s) and/or there’s a feeling the article will lessen a backlash from an increase in authorized shares or similar dilutive actions.

If this triggers some type of JV or licensing agreement, then it’s worth the wait. But it’s difficult to reconcile why a counter party would want the JA, unless it’s for public relations?

I don’t believe the embargo nonsense. Not only is it inconsistent with the experience of other biotechs, the embargo story seemed to be circulated even before they had a journal lined up, which likely occurred much later than everyone suspected.

Now my three options behind each of three doors are a park bench, a tiny house, or what’s behinds door number three — a body cast.

biosectinvestor

06/28/22 1:40 AM

#490662 RE: Hopeforthefuture3 #490638

I pointed out yesterday this was not true. You did not substantiate subsequently your claim. AMRN’s PR references that the NEJM article was being published simultaneously and puts a link. The date of the article in its final form is later, but they were published literally simultaneously in November.