1. We heard it here first. This "interview" is largely composed of material that Dr. Wurlitzer posted on this board. Thank you, Dr. Wurlitzer, for sharing your insights here first.
2. I found the interview hard to follow in the sense that, especially for people new to AEZS and KERX, the interview is sometimes unclear as to whether Dr. Wurlitzer is setting forth his own views, or those of AEZS critics. Eventually it becomes clear, but some paragraphs could be misunderstood or taken out of context.
3. I agree with much of this paragraph:
The extensive pipeline (AEZS- 108, 112, 120, 129/131/132, and 130) and in particular the future value of AEZS 108 (a targeted cytotoxic LHRH analog) and various Perifosine combinations with other drugs for multiple myeloma, neuroblastoma, and a host of other serious conditions suggest a fundamental value for AEZS many times that for KERX that has essentially just a two drug pipeline (PCAP in the U.S. and Zerenex).
However I thought KERX has peri in North America, period. Am I wrong?