Boy Graystone, you sure dug that reference up out of the past, July 10. In your post I was referring to, you were mentioning recent FDA talk. This was initiated by Celeryroot on Aug 19:
from Celeryroot, Aug 19, to me
"While you are answering questions:
Who is the Industrial Review Board?
Why does CYGS require their acceptance?
THX"
However, re your questions on my Jul 10 post:
Who is going to pay the FDA toll.
What toll would that be Graham.
* As was clear in the context, that was the cost of approving a vector/antisense package
So you are saying Cryogenics will be participating in a $300 Million dollar market in about 18 months, kind of optimistic isn't it.
Are you sure that the FDA will approve things that quick.
* Yes it was over-optimistic and not well expressed. (Despite rumors to the contrary, I'm not always right) What I was trying to get at was potential CYGS revenues as part of a growing antisense market, without too much consideration of when they could intersect it. You know, that market size thing again. As you see at the bottom of the original post, I did say I was still pondering this.
Are the vectors in pre-clinical now?
* Answered that to Celery the other day. My opinion, yes.
I see you mention animal testing, are you saying that is being done also ?
* No, in fact I was saying telomere animal testing was being delayed in favor of the antisense delivery vector work.
Another reference to MSFT, are you guys all right over here.
* It was, and still is, a clear and useful comparison in product positioning. As the delivery vector, CYGS is similar to the OS of antisense.
In summary, I won't always be right, but I will always be honest and I'm always ready to consider alternate views and good input.
Graham |
