@playez
Took your opinion and started digging a little further on the TPM comparisons as u said can essentially get from a number of providers in slight formula variations.
Obviously correct however I found that Vit E as u plainly put it is actually quite a complex little set up with many combinations and possible uses as below.
https://www.naturalproductsinsider.com/heart-health/many-forms-vitamin-eSo, given the above and to understand some more, I went back to have a look at the original studies and publication by POH team in Elsevier repository 2005. A repository of various other journals & publications that I suspect is not really prone to publishing articles, studies etc without some kind of merit or scientific evidence backing them. Generally reviewed first.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584905002947Once there I found that particular POH article / paper has had 63 citations revolving around TP studies. Guess if was publishing something myself and didn't see "merit" in some other article / paper I don't think I would be citing it.
One recent citation by a bunch of Phd's, accepted Dec 17, online Feb 18 and in Oct 18s issue I found quite interesting given the comments...
The (+) α-TP bilayers displayed superior Streptococcus oralis biofilm growth retardation, a more substantive action, generated a superior adsorption to hydroxyapatite and showed an enhanced inhibition of multi-species bacterial saliva biofilm growth (38 ± 7μm vs 58 ± 18 μm,P ˂ 0.05) compared to (+) α-T.These appear to support TPM in some ways & tie in with some of the conditions Dapto seeks to treat and a form of a-TP adds some weight to it more than just a-T. So, could u categorically say POHs formulation has no validity? Not yet I don't feel.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1549963418300091Also looking at the citations I see that some of the POH team have had a couple of others published in 17 / 18 as well citing the POH original. I haven't searched to access those ones.
https://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.uri?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-33644617941&src=s&imp=t&sid=cbd28899ac4af3a3c110bbfefe18aeab&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&editSaveSearch=&txGid=c50588975e8871e292760b7343790a07POH site with its TPM spiel outlines their mix is formulated a specific way, as are all formulations however, do their studies show their formula can do what they are aiming for...possibly. Maybe we'll find out or maybe never know now.
http://www.phosphagenics.com/tpm/So I guess, is TPM as simple as a Vit E?
I'm leaning towards no at this stage.
Is TPM a failure because of the arbitration or is the IP now worth nothing because it's not commercially successful as u put it?
Again, I don't believe so imo and could obviously be wrong but is just an opinion. Personally at this stage, I feel more of a company strategic and timing error more than anything else. If they could have seen 2 yrs down the track that their licence agreement re generic Dapto etc may come into play then maybe arbitration would have been held back and we would now have funds and a position to call Mylan on this instead, rather than a patent panic.
Would a new Patent / IP that say Apple put forward be considered worthless purely as it hasn't been proven commercial or is it something companies / individuals do as a forward looking way of working on it being commercial one day and protecting their rights in the interim.
Kind of like all of us trader / investors....we always hear the adage the mkt is forward looking and we invest often in unproven companies with unproven wells, mines, tech etc on the premise it will have increased value at some point. They don't all work out just as patents / IP don't either but they generally have "some" value until proven otherwise.
Cheers for your earlier post & prompting me to have a look a little deeper. Have a good one.
(20min delay)
