InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

bag8ger

04/08/05 5:23 PM

#23720 RE: frogdreaming #23716

frog,

Wow! You can't even dream up good questions on this one.

Those crumbs and discards filtering down must be what you have been left with to question this deal.
icon url

ann441j

04/08/05 6:51 PM

#23728 RE: frogdreaming #23716

Frog:

"Just curious."

Could you say - "Curiosity killed a...frog?" - lol

Ann
icon url

Gcbr

04/08/05 9:06 PM

#23745 RE: frogdreaming #23716

frog---I love it when you ask such stupid questions. Right
now there is only one company that can make this drug work.
That be DNAP. They know that and gave them some very favorable
terms. They will stand to make some now. It could have been all
lost had it not been for DNAP. Wake up and smell the rosses instead of the swill.
icon url

brainlessone

04/10/05 2:20 PM

#23824 RE: frogdreaming #23716

2 million up front for a drug which has not been made is a hell of lot of money. the university is very very happy
icon url

Easyman51

04/10/05 3:01 PM

#23827 RE: frogdreaming #23716

frog, I think you answered your own question w/
..."Does Beth Isreal think that DNAP is the best choice to finish the development and then market their drug?"

That would be the logical conclusion, and I doubt looking for other discrediting reasons very practical, unless surmising for/or submitting missing info, in depreciation be your part to play.

Hey, just my thoughts, and imho, and would be ginning on a gurney if I had to take the journey.

Easy
icon url

dmceng

04/10/05 4:04 PM

#23828 RE: frogdreaming #23716

frog
lots of things always going on behind the closed doors of corporate america
this is just more of the same
btw, i have asked myself all of your questions and more
my guess a big player is already and has been involved
almost has to be the senario
how dnap got in on the deal,who knows
take care
david