Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Interesting that Nintedanib is also used to treat lung cancer!!
Nintedanib, sold under the brand names Ofev and Vargatef, is an oral medication used for the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and along with other medications for some types of non-small-cell lung cancer.
OSS, yes I get your point.
The 2018 tests for NXP002 alone vs IPF were multi donor and therefore carry weight. I think it is still valid to say that the current test to prove that NXP002 is complimentary to current SOC is a different test in that it was intended to prove that it is still beneficial when offered alongside current SOC. My point was that a multi donor test here (if possible) would have removed any doubts that could be raised about it being a fluke result.
I accept that the boundaries of this test may have been agreed upfront between relevant parties and may be enough to move forward. We shall see in good time how that pans out.
Someone's loading up on cheap shares.
Have everything crossed next week is good to us, so much possible news flow volume should clear seller/s pretty quickly I'd hope, as said if it's great news they'll think more about holding what's left. Anything Covid related will get ramped to high heaven on Twitter which should provide great liquidity.
Lets not forget that the latest RNS also mentions lower doses and additional effects when compared to SOC. Was this latest test as a "one off" specifically to prove thoughts on these findings and thus add to the already considerable beneficial properties of NXP002 .
I take both of their points on too Jiving. I want to see this succeed as much as anyone else but we've had some pretty poor management and feel like asking questions as I'm sick of watching my hard-earned get p*ssed away for little progress other than to justify more fundraising just to keep the lights on.
I'm not sure what the true figures are for UK IPF deaths but I got a rough figure of 5.5k and rising from this website:
https://pulmonaryfibrosisnews.com/2019/08/05/mortality-rate-due-to-ipf-has-risen-in-united-kingdom-data-show/
I would have hoped that there would be enough donors from a number of that size that would be willing to help combat this disease for the future but I don't really appreciate the complexities or know the true figures so will not argue any further about the single donor test point. I just know that releasing data from donor does not look as convincing as it would from several.
If OSS is correct about this test being for interested western 3rd parties then it was probably designed and agreed that way and your point about Roche and BI being interested may be closer to the truth than I thought, who knows? To be honest, I think I would rather see a deal done with a fresh and eager new partner than a company that has been dragging its heels for the last 18 months.
FX. Pretty much agree with all your points. I am worried about Kissei, we are now heading for 18 months since the Times leak. If not them (with their tranilast data) then who? Will this public RNS of the research results bring out a partner, I am now in year 4 of waiting. I take on board the good points by Offshore & Soup, but remain worried.
FX, re. testing on multiple donors. The problem is you have to wait for donors, they are not always available at the right time and there are often not that many. In the UK there were only 2474 registered cases of IPF in the 6 years between 2013 and 2019, so not a large pool to donate.
When they did the first preclinical a couple of years ago, it was delayed a few months for exactly this reason.
So, whilst it may have only been a single donor, the massive plus point is that it was tested on human tissue.
Jiving, your point is very valid. However, has the same logic not also applied to our Asian 'partners' over the last 18 months as well? Why have they not jumped in yet?
Although I think this is good news and a step forward, I am slightly confused as to why they didn't test this on the tissue from multiple donors, even if it was just several. Surely that would have strengthened the data many times over.
My point is, is this data strong enough on its own to strike deals with? If so, then surely the 'partner' we have been talking to for the last 18 months must be chomping at the bit. Why would they delay further and leave the opportunity for someone else to beat them to it?
If the data is not strong enough then what is the point of releasing it? Is it just to qualify for the Innovate grant? Then what? The Innovate grant is unlikely to be enough to develop in-house and if we haven't got enough data to encourage a partner then the only other option is a fundraiser to enable them to take it forward themselves.
Now we haven't had the usual Proactive interview to big up the RNS yet. I'm hoping that is because Anne is currently finalising details of the legendary deal with our eager Asian parties rather than just waiting for the nice people from Innovate to give her a call.
If the Asian partners are still not biting then I think shareholders deserve to know why.
Sweet thinking jiv
The two drugs NXP002 was combined with - pirfenidone (Roche) & nintedanib ( Boehringer Ingelheim) - are both owned by major pharma's & both are apparently nearing the end of their patent life. Surely NXP002 would represent an ideal fit for either one of those two & enable them to continue to service their IPF customer base with a new patented product, enhancing the soon-to-be generic drugs they had previously supplied.