You make some good points.  One only needs to look at what happened with YM this morning and how well the lid was kept on the buyout.  There was simply no opportunity to get onboard between close yesterday and open today.  This is the nature of how jr. biotech stocks trade.  When does this happen to us?  Don't know the answer to that question, but I'm sure there are a number of YM shareholders that traded out of the stock yesterday that are probably sorry they did that today. 

Judging by the recent swoon in the BTI SP, it would suggest that some don't think that a licensing deal is something that is imminent (or whatever other type of deal, other than another collaborative).  No news on Shire is being translated as:  "Bioasis, you have nothing.  And to prove the point, Shire did a deal with Armagen".  On this board, many have hypothesized that Shire is simply playing games with us and trying to separate us from our marketcap.  Just makes good business sense to do so from Shire's perspective.  To prove the point that Shire is probably playing games, I want to refer you to a paper that was filed earlier this year by Shire scientists on their Intrathecal program:


In particular, the introduction section references some of Armagen's work on the insulin & transferrin receptors (items [5], [6], [7] & [8] W Partridge):

"Various noninvasive brain-targeting methods using endogenous molecular transport mechanisms have been explored as drug delivery strategies. These have included fusion proteins that target delivery by transcytosis using insulin [5], [6], or transferrin [7], [8], receptors. Encapsulation technologies, such as pegylated immunoliposomes, have been used to deliver plasmids to the brain through the BBB utilizing monoclonal antibody ligands as the targeting agent [9], [10]. More recent efforts have explored the use of nanoparticles (polymers, emulsions or suspensions) to traverse the BBB through various endocytotic pathways [11]. While promising from a mechanistic point of view, few of these innovative strategies have progressed beyond preclinical evaluation, leaving direct administration into the CSF or brain tissue as the only clinically viable method for delivery of therapeutics to the brain and spinal cord."

Well it appears that Shire's own scientists are skeptical about Armagen's work by concluding that the only viable method is via intrathecal methods.  Now it might be that they have seen something interesting as of late, but I don't think so, because Armagen's transport mechanisms have' nt changed.  As I've stated in a previous post, Armagen seems to have delivered something in the ~1.3% of an injected dose (don't know if that's ever been verified by an independent organization like TTU, BC Cancer of the NRC).  My suspicion is that we are significantly higher than that based on our 6.6% BT2111 and knowing that enzymes do not transport quite as efficiently through the IDU study.

Given the above study by Shire scientists, should make for some interesting discussion between the people at Shire HGT & Shire Plc - wouldn't you think?