RE: FT Article17 May 2023 09:37
i'd agree that if the ciz tech pans out as we hope, we can expect some early offers to buy out.
the question is what qualifies as cheap?
how much of a threat is a potential ciz test to the revenues that the bigger pharmas currently make from ongoing treatments?
genuine question- i don't know the answer.
my thoughts are that actually they make a **** ton of money from the ****tails of drugs that people with stage 3/4 cancers have to take - the chemo, then the drugs to deal with the side-effects, then the drugs to deal with those side effects and the ongoing repeated scans etc,etc,etc.
it's a license to print money - its no secret that treatment is always more profitable than a cure...
if our test was to save, for example, the nhs £100m a year, we have to understand that a lot of the £100m would of been going to big pharma.
rhetorical question - will they be happy with that?
another rhetorical question - is big pharma in it to maximise lives saved?
in the us its completely different - its all about the money, not saving it.
our test could potentially threaten any/all of the pharmas involved with cancer treatment.
so - what is "cheap"?
is , for example, £1.4b (so £4/share at circa 350m shares in issue) cheap if you protect ongoing yearly revenues of multiples of that?