Business, as much as any early-stage drug development company is a business. The risk-to-reward prospect is outstanding. Azixa is almost certainly approvable for something or other, and the maximum possible market is well into the blockbuster range.
People with little common senses bet $1 on $100s million ticket. Only a FOOL would bet his entire asset, $100M, on a lottery ticket. $12-20M on the Indian patients which is ONLY 1/5 of the total cost for Azixa GBM trials. The CEO complained that stock was trading at $4.05 at the first day despite it had $7+ in cash. Why? Because the Street think that management is a FOOL! Who is right? After a 1-1/2 years, they have left with $5.6, Azixa is still an uncertain proof of concept, no partnerships, and what about HIV drugs? DEAD! You should've asked yourself what caused the restructuring in June! Management would NEVER do it voluntarily, maybe First Eagle forced them. Anyway, I understand that drug development is a very risky business, that's why GOOD and CREDIBLE biotech execs should always manage risks through partnerships which for years MYRX management has promised but failed to deliver. CREDIBILITY is a real problem with management especially after the Lundbeck debacle.
You seem to have some very firm mistaken ideas. By normal criteria, Azixa development is going very well. See the "crapshoot" topic for what might happen over roughly a 3-year span. In essence, it's a heads we make out like bandits; tails we break even sort of bet. If you don't like it, don't invest in little drug developers. Most of them are worse.
Partnerships etc. are not things drug developers do to minimize risk. Ordinarily, small drug developers have one or two candidates and the company will fail if those candidates fail. They have insufficient funds to develop their candidates to possible approval, so they sell enough of their future to get the drugs developed. Myrexis has the money, so they don't need to sell their prospects.
I don't necessarily like the abandonment of the HIV program, but presented as a business decision it makes sense. The money a drug developer pays to get to clinical trials, even through phase 1 stuff, is pocket change compared to the cost of getting approval. There's enough money on hand for one expensive push to approval or one relatively cheap push to approval and taking another candidate well into phase 2. At worst, since GBM is so catastrophic, the trials run short (=cheap). There's enough money to do work on the other two cancer candidates. An anti-HIV approval campaign would run long (=expensive), and the marketplace is crowded. Let's see--we can chase a potential blockbuster and keep hunting two others, or we can focus on a possible small moneymaker(with about the same prospects of success). Maybe it was the big investor that forced the choice to be made, but it was a good business decision.