Exactly... as others have also pointed out, if the company suspects an approval is forthcoming, then having this report already on hand to educate potential new investors (retail and/or funds) would be very helpful. If you suspect the opposite (like you're fighting a negative CHM recommendation), you'd likely not commission a report that educated the reader on what to expect with an MHRA approval, lol.
NICE readiness commentary is a joke. If a company can’t submit evidence 5.5 years since data lock then its not a serious company that will deliver shareholder value.
The UK first strategy is also a joke. They are already at 27 months post MAA submission and yet it’s only 5-7% of the US potential. US would have made a decision in about an year. And the reimbursement per patient would be far higher.
This company will never attract any credible institutional investors ever. Forget about big pharma, LOL! ;)
NICE readiness commentary is a joke. If a company can’t submit evidence 5.5 years since data lock then its not a serious company that will deliver shareholder value.
The UK first strategy is also a joke. They are already at 27 months post MAA submission and yet it’s only 5-7% of the US potential. US would have made a decision in about an year. And the reimbursement per patient would be far higher.
This company will never attract any credible institutional investors ever. Forget about big pharma, LOL! ;)
Ok. Let’s just play devils advocate here. You say “it’s very positive that the company paid for the report….” Why? Most other companies have analysts do it on their own will and are not compensated for writing good or bad. “Logically a company would do that if approval was coming” no they wouldn’t. Again most companies don’t pay for this. If that data was “that good” and this vaccine is “a game changer” (as many say) then they wouldn’t have to pay and people would have picked up on this stock. The data isn’t that good and no one knows about NWBO so that is why they paid. Simple.