Pdude, there's plenty that I agree with. KM inherited a difficult situation, dealt by the hands of Thero/Kennedy who are now gone, but in my opinion is making the best of it, stabilizing USA scripts at 60% for the time being. UK NICE was a homerun, and I still remember that good feeling reading Studythosestocks' recap of the 2nd meeting, where we got Bhatt to testify. Germany was always going to be difficult, and yes even Big Pharma often gets rejected (Crestor, PCSK9s, Farxiga, Trajenta all dealt with at least 1st round rejections to name the ones I know). If I do vote for Denner, for me it won't be because I think KM has done a bad job, it would be because of either seeing weekly US scripts slide beyond comfort (I don't want us getting diluted), or because I feel there isn't some near term catalyst to look forward to (given that European exclusivity ends in 2031).
Regarding your comment on MITIGATE, believe me I don't need it for myself to believe in the mountain of evidence proving IPE's benefit. But if the data is strong, I see it as a excellent means to strengthen our second dossier submission to Germany with "fresh new data" and win the added benefit designation. For me, I'd like to see Germany and France reimbursement play out, and I agree that Denner can't really offer much on that process, and it all comes down to the scientific engagement between the teams KM built and those two governments.
Just speaking personally and in all in my opinion, my feeling is that if MITIGATE is a dud, and if I shouldn't put my hopes in it, then I'm not sure what I'm waiting for and this entices me to just put all my votes to Denner and his seven nominees. Feel free to correct any of my viewpoints, and as I've said, I always appreciate your posts.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
