Jon,
The way I see it milestones are usually points that are set where the company gets paid, usually by a partner that formally established the milestone. We have no such partner. To my knowledge the company never firmly said, this date is our milestone for making a certain event. Sure, they have suggested they expected things to happen faster than they have, but I believe that all along they've known that commercial production was not going to be possible prior to this, or perhaps even next year with FlaskWorks, and this year in limited manual production at Sawston, and that's the key to success.
If they could have ended the trial in 2018 with 3 years minimum data on all patients instead of 5 years, but knew that at the earliest commercial production could come in 2023, would it make sense to do so and not have the more convincing data achieved with a minimum of 5 years for every patient in the trial. I don't think so. Perhaps there has been some slippage as to when they though commercial production could be available, but I don't believe that substantial slippage occurred there. Could the MIA have come faster, sure, but it's not in their control. The company knew the facility had met inspectors demand for making compassionate use vaccine, I have no idea what more they may have asked for to call it commercial, but clearly they must have asked for something in spite of continuing to allow the facility to provide the same vaccine for compassionate use.
In the past I've seen years lost by either problems with the regulators, or problems with the equipment making the product, there was no way the companies involved could forecast the problem. In the end the product was approved, or the trial finally continued and it failed, but neither success or failure was caused by the delay.
As to LP's skills, or lack of them, her record looks awfully strong. I think she needs to be given more credit for getting us to this point than she's being given. Certainly other CEO's would have done it differently, I suspect that more than half would have failed and thrown in the towel well before now. I doubt if it would have survived if developed in a BP. Why? Because they want products they can mass produce and I doubt if enough of their management would have championed it to the point where it could be approved. When you have many choices that are in, or could go in the clinic, often products lose the support of enough key people that they're simply abandoned before anyone really knows how good they may be. Don't get me wrong, I believe we have blockbuster potential many times over and when we prove it BP will want to own, or at least have some of the action here, but would they have developed it themselves, I doubt it.
I can't say for certain that we'll have U.K. approval this year, or others all by next, but I think it's probable. Regardless of when, once we have approvals I cannot see any way that we're either not highly successful, or bought out at prices we're thrilled with. LP has carried the company this far, it would be foolish not to permit her to take it through approval. I'm no different from others, I'd like to see her out fighting to raise the share price, however in comparing her with others in a similar position, they don't fight any more than she does if they really have something good to come.
The CEO's who fight to promote their companies are the likes of the CEO of CVM who'll state that he's certain Multikine is the answer to practically anything if you'll just buy the new stock I'm rolling out to support new trials. I view Multikine as a cure in search of a disease, perhaps some day it will find it.
I believe our day will come, when it does we'll be toasting LP instead of criticizing her. I'm willing to wait for that day.
Gary
Bullish
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
