The viable terminology seems apt. The EMA could have made it unviable if they wanted to be an absolute bastard, but there seems to be a able pathway.
The pre-clinical should be no problem as it is re-doing what has already been done. I believe that is the case, and if so the EMA could have been a little kinder and accepted those studies and results, and if this is the case then I see the EMA as exercising its right to be a bit of a bastard. TIS have been hammered into submission and have to accept this it seems to me. Mercer went the hard ass way, (and flapped his gums publicly about the EMA) and got us off-side.
The EMA could have accepted the current clinical trial data, with provisions for further study, but have pointed us down the hard road, but at least its a road and not a cliff.
I thought the application process was put on pause, able to be reactivated. Obviously not, and again is subject to the 210 day plus application process, and fee. Not nice and a huge waste of time, which is money.
You would think that some of this could be done concurrently, but if the EMA says no then no it is.
My conclusion to date is that the share price reflects that it will be another 3 years, but it can happen. I am sure there will be a different attitude regarding the use of company funds. The management have a need and opportunity to restore some credibility.
I think the company should do the pre-clinical and them raise more money as the success of that may raise some enthusiasm.
Gutted but not gone. (I actually think its a buy, which reflects people bought 4.5 mil shares yesterday).
Expand
