@Strawman - a great meeting with Alan.

He's not the first to draw the analogy between pharma and resources. In fact, some of the world largest resource and pharma companies have studied each others' R&D / Exploration and Development processes to gain learning into better capital allocation and decision processes. (As an aside, I find it interesting that 75% of my career has been in either resources or pharma. The reason I prefer healthcare to invest in, is that the IP protection means that prices aren't commoditised when it counts - i.e., the early revenue years!)

In previous straws and posts, I've said I wasn't considering investing in $CU6. However, as a result of my early position in $TLX, I have been doing a lot of research into radiopharma in oncology. Much of what Alan said in the meeting confirmed and added to my understanding. I am now shifting in my thinking.

In the event that CLARIFY and even more importantly SECURE continue their early initial promise, and should NDAs be granted in due course, the pre-existing products in the market are doing the hard work of building the market of clinicians using these products to diagnose and treat. Should clearly superior products become available, then of course switching products in an existing market and associated workflows, is an easier thing. Because of this, should $CU6 get both the Cu64 and Cu67 products approved for prostate, we'd be look as a very different valuation from today, with the potential for very rapid adoption - particularly if there are positive stats in differentials in patient outcomes.

It was interesting to hear about the clinician demand to get more patients on Cu67, and the relative benefits of the longer half-life both in the imaging and therapy modes (Alan's mentioned this before on investor calls and other podcasts). $TLX have tried to spin their very short half-life issue as a benefit around speed of treatment. They have knocked the idea that a patient might be imaged a day after dosing for better S/N due to the inconvenience of have to be in the process for longer. But given what these patients are dealing with in terms of important life decisions, and potentially earlier failed lines of treatment, I'm not so convinced.

$CU6 is still not aligned with my usual risk appetite. After all, an adverse reaction or series of less promising results, could dampen the outlook quite quickly. However, as Alan says, it is all about understanding the probabilities. I'm not far off from concluding that a small speculative investment might be justified for me.

I'm glad we have some companies like these on the ASX to consider. More work to do! But a great meeting.