Of course it's not over yet. As far as we know, the issue isn't with the science -- it's an unwillingness to bend the typical rules for a drug that shows promise but with too small of a trial to take the risk of spending billions of dollars giving it to the masses without knowing for sure who will benefit and how much.
Recently analyzed data showing certain subgroups are highly likely to respond may be enough to sway the appeals process, or maybe we need to run a few more trials. That'll take about 3 years and will cost around $125-$150 million. So at a 33% discount, that would be around $2/share or 60-75mm shares added to the coffer assuming Dr. M wants to keep current $80mm or so as a reserve.
Assume around 150mm shares outstanding when all is said and done. Even with just 1 million users at $5000/year (if Dr. M wants to undercut the mAbs at the sake of maximizing profit to boost odds of approval), that's $5B/year revenue. At a 2.5x p/s deal, and 150mm shares issued, that comes out to $83/share.
For every 1mm users, $83 per share. And for what it's worth I think 2.5x is pretty conservative.
My point is that the profits are still massive even with conservative numbers accounting for partnership and/or dilution. For those who want to see what a 30/70 revenue split in BPs favor + 50% operating costs might look like:
1mm * $5000* .3 * .5 * (insert your P/E, I'll use 15x) / 150mm = $75/share, so in the same ball park.
To use your football analogy, think of it as the coach calling for a trick play to end the game from the one yard line, and it failed. Now we go into overtime. Still anyone's game to win or lose. I believe a P3 confirmation will succeed because for the same reason Advil always works when I take it, there seems to be too much evidence supporting Blarcamesine for at least certain patient populations.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
