I've worked for a BP and know how they THINK. EVERY executive decision is weighed with the calculation: "if I do this, what are the consequences for me if I'm wrong." They do not stick their necks out for anything. As far as they are concerned, if it hasn't been proven it doesn't exist.
There are innumerable new technologies with fabulous potential in animal studies. But there have been hundreds of drugs that cured cancer in mice and were useless in humans
The difference with nanoviricides is that, because they do not require any interaction with the host for their antibiotic effect, the animal studies will be far more representative than usual. But THAT is the kind of exception that PB executives are highly reluctant to make. It's bad enough if you make what appears to be a sound decision but it nevertheless goes wrong. But should you make a decision based on an EXCEPTION and THAT goes wrong: OFF WITH THE HEAD!
That kind of thinking is exactly why BPs cant come up with new drug approaches themselves. It would be foolish to expect them to go into a mode of thinking at the opposite end of the spectrum when evaluating possible buys.
BP is not going to attempt a buyout before Phase I/IIa at the very earliest and in that case only if the data supports an early approval IMHO. Otherwise Phase II is the earliest.
In any case I doubt that Dr Seymour would ever want to sell to BP before at least several drugs were on the market, because he would get a vastly higher price then AND because it should only take several additional years to get there.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
