The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes place tomorrow with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Hi TT…all pretty much supposition at this point in absence of confirmed info from Cizzle, and with you that they should be providing greater transparency (even with context of NDAs, IP protection etc….)
On the Bio-Techne RNS- I work a lot with our investor relations team (EUR 20bn MC), nothing goes out without multiple checks, and that’s in the UK, US must be even more conscientious. If they say it works, I think that’s a given - granted sensitivity / specificity / PPV / NPV will show how efficacious it is…but they’re not putting their name to it unless it’s comparable with industry standards…
A lot of supposition there Green, but that's all we are left with.
"I think the science works", you say. Maybe.."A 10B business isn't going to risk reputational damage by RNSing something they can't stand behind"..you added
Again, maybe.
Maybe that was true at that point within limits but it didn't go far enough. Maybe Ciz version doesn't tally with Biotechne, maybe something has subsequently changed.
We don't know..
And again.
We SHOULD be informed. Since we had no idea of Biotechne (in the positive), Ciz is setting an unsettling precedent of only releasing news that suits them.
Unfortunately this works to the negative too.
Openness and accurate updates are the key to trust, else we are just flailing in the dark.
Just on the proprietary piece…asking a company like Bio-Techne…US legal team of a $10bn org…can you design and manufacture this mAb for us but we want full title on it…can’t see that working out well…might be why they’ve looked elsewhere (recognise nothing with bio-techne was set in stone re mAbs, reagents)…
I think the science works… if you’ve tested it in conjunction with Bio-Techne on Jess, that has to test that you are getting the right results…a $10bn+ business isn’t going to risk reputational damage by RNSing something they can’t stand behind.
However, the question remains why are they partnering Proteogenix - we must have highlighted 20+ possible reasons, but we just need clarification.
It appears that they have now settled on the mAbs and reagents, however high level back story is important.
“…enter into the manufacturing and scale up of key antibodies and reagents”
Then this part suggests it’s an IP thing…
“…new antibodies from this development programme should extend the range and proprietary rights that the Company has for detecting the CIZ1B Biomarker”
Proprietary rights…@the legal rights of an entity to own tangible or intangible property”
Could it be that Proteogenix would manufacture but the licencing rights sit with Cizzle, whereas one of the other partners wanted to retain title?? Therefore Cizzle switched to keep greater IP protection?
Exactly Brond - so the question is : How do we get Ciz to tell us the truth about what's happening?
Ps what makes you think it's just one private investor in the fundraise?
If so, it's a sign of confidence, but I doubt it's just one person. I concur that future funding will almost definitely be needed, but I think these shares will be flipped - and if so, another black mark against Ciz.
We'll see on that one.
Papertub. Step 1 has been done multiple times. There are literally published papers from years ago with the results (youll find it somewhere in my posting history). Allan even cites the 95% accurate test in one of his interviews.
The scale up is the requirement to commercialise, and the reported breakthrough last Aug was being able to run this in an automated platform. A month later they announced that Biotechne Jess machine would be the one they use.
So i think you are quite far off the mark.
The scale up of the reagents production js necessry, and then the test accuracy needs to assessed again using those scaled up reagents and with the standard operating procedures specified, to get to the cited test numbers.
Now i doubt that they would product reagents at commercial scale without already knowing they work from internal trials. But you still have to verify them in the clinical tests formally.
Where i think you are correct is that any institution or large biotech companies will be waiting on the results of the scales up trials.
Papertub, I basically agree with what you're saying. I also think timescales are going to be drawn out. They may never achieve what they're hoping to commercially.
The problem is that they stated that assays had basically been optimized, and it was time for clinical trials and then commercialization.
Now they're saying something totally different.
Labouring a point here, but I think we're at a stage where we all need to know what's going on.
A lot of the posts on this forum confuse me a little bit.
The lack of news from the bod likely means they do not know if this solution is completely valid on a commercial level. Without sufficient data supporting this major investors will not come along. This type of cancer detection is the future of early cancer detection, and the biomarker Cizzle are working on will make up a suite of biomarkers used in the future to detect most cancers in one simple blood test.
The issue is, this is going to be a huge business and there will be many research labs working on a similar solution. Without demonstrating our biomarker is a commercial solution we won’t get any larger companies interested in this.
I think the news that a private investor is investing in the company is great news as it is likely we will need more funding like this in the future to get past the initial trials.
Step 1 which I’m not sure has been proven yet, is can Cizzle create a test that is accurate and consistent - no results from even the first step yet.
Step 2 - larger trials, gathering more data - enough data to prove to larger pharma companies this is a legitimate solution.
Step 3 - commercialisation.
We still have a long way to go, and until there is results from step 1 the bod have very little to talk about, apart from repeating what’s been previously said, with an aim to drum up interest from private investors.
Well , absolutely no offence intended Brond. Good-humoured banter.
Again. ..
Your post gets to the crux of things without actually stating the subject.
Whatever is going on, whichever path they are taking, progress.
WE NEED TO KNOW. As shareholders we have a RIGHT to know
(Not every little scientific step or daily increments in the lab, but an overall picture ..why details on reagents etc have fundamentally changed)
No offense taken techT. My point is really that forward selling gets banded about off pat in every raise without any real evidence.
On LDTs
"Qualified labs may create a new LDT in four basic ways (see Figure 3): • Starting from scratch, assembling relevant testing reagents and other FDA-reviewed testing components. • Combining elements of FDA-reviewed test kits with components made or separately acquired by the lab. • Obtaining the protocol for a test developed as an LDT by another facility. • Altering an FDA-cleared or -approved IVD by, for instance, enabling the product to analyze patient specimens that have been stored longer than the test’s labeling allows."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2021/10/the-role-of-lab-developed-tests-in-the-in-vitro-diagnostics-market
Not sure that helps us know which route we are going down, but seems that its routine for not everything to originate in the lab.
Ps Brond..sorry about Santa, because you seem such a lovely lad 😁
Thanks v much for that Neil and I think it reinforces, supports my/our concerns here. Again, I really do appreciate your views, and it's a flaw of my character that I sometimes shoot from the hip. Big heart, open mind and reason lies within though.
I think we can all agree on this now - that we don't know fully what is going on, and we NEED better communication with specifics to make a judgment on our own investments.
It's just not good enough and the company, as you say , have been sending out mixed messages (at the very least). Speaking with forked -tongue.
My unease comes from not even knowing what they're saying! Allan uses "done, partly done, being done and to be done" in highly unspecific vague waffly lingo. It's so loose, it's unprofessional. I've certainly lost trust in what he says.
We don't know what we have achieved , we don't know what the problems have been (some for sure, I'm guessing) and we don't know what is to be done - and we don't know the timescales.
Neil, I wouldn't read too much into the £620k specifics. And also more vague semantics from Alan " to go towards the completion of commercialization"..
"Towards" in Ciz language could mean anything.
The trading patterns in the 3 weeks prior to RNS were irregular. I've been mentioning block sells for ages. It wasn't normal PI stuff. That's all that I can say with surety.
Neil, I would be grateful if you could keep us posted if you hear any more.
See if i can remember part 2
....in the UK"
Again, he didn't answer his own question, but went on about USA
Sept 2023 interview - "obviously our shareholders are very keen to understand what's going on" Well how about telling us?
Like what is the significance of ProteoGenix? we know about extending the library of antibodies, as this has been discussed previously. But is it an extension to the original lung cancer test to include breast cancer (which we know is in progress) and the other cancer types i posted about? or is it a way to aid entry into EU with CE mark? We are all left guessing.
One issue i have either way, is i was under the impression that LDT had to be manufactured/validated/ used in the same laboratory? How does ProteoGenix tie in with us?
There has been a bit of discussion as to whether the China deal is dead.
No, not as far as i understand.
China cannot progress with kit development until we supply them with the validated mabs/reagents. There is also a binding agreement in place.
Techtonic, you asked why i am still sure of a positive outcome. I refer you to my previous answer, but will add that despite all the negatives i can find, and i admit i can find plenty if i look at it in detail, the fundamentals of the company have not changed from those prior to a p++s poor RNS. last week.
New investors.
£620k seems a very specific amount. Possibly the bod now know the costs of getting this over the line now that we are down to the last stages?
Neil
Boll==ks its just deleted part 2!
Evening all.
Techtonic - that Santa one did make me laugh!
Brondby, unfortunately forward selling is most definitely a problem and there are many,many examples to be seen.
However, in this last placing, i am not entirely convinced. There is something not consistent with the normal trading pattern when this takes place, as to what has happened here over the last week or so. Can't put my finger on what/why is happening, but there is definitely something different.
The trouble with having so many bits of information/interviews/reports to cross reference, is that this reply was going to end up 4 and a half x A4 pages long! and i can make arguments both for and against the same piece of information, So i
won't go over the same things again and try and keep it brief so as not to put you all in a coma, and hopefully it is not all over the place!
Greend100 covered most of the points to a good degree, and i fully agree with sentiment here about the loss of confidence in the bod's comms.
There are a number of inconsistencies in what Allan has said. Now whether that is accidental, purposeful, or just down to timescales i don't know, and we will each form our own opinion. But the fact is whichever option, it has had a bad effect on shareholders.
I'll list a few as examples.
1. March 26th interview. ".....Busily optimising our assay........" but you told us 24th April 2023 that key milestones on optimising had been met. Did something change?
"Generating new antibodies....." again, we have been told on more than one occasion that new antibodies had been generated.
Depending on your point of view, why? or is it as previously mentioned, that the increasing library of antibodies will be used in breast cancer detection (which we know is already in progress) and the other types i mentioned in previous posts?
Is this why the process appears to be taking longer than we all thought/expected?
Will the test which was initially being launched as lung cancer detection, being modified to use the same platform to detect other cancers?
2. Sept 23 interview - ".....goal is to COMPLETE our clinical trials......" any reasonable person would interpret that as the trials are in PROGRESS, since any other statement would surely be "goal is to COMMENCE"
3. As other have pointed out, on interviews, he spends most of the time explaining what Cizzle Biotecnology is about, and only brief content is on the actual announcement.
What i have noticed also, is that he starts on a subject then goes off on a tangent. For example, on last weeks interview he said
"key thing and what our shareholders are wanting to know is, what the progress has been on the development of our early stage lung cancer test "
He didn't even answer his own question!" he went on to say "these funds are going to be dedicated towards the priority of getting our first commercial test to market"
Same interview, his own question......"people would like to know when will this become available
OAPK20, that's some claim. I found the Cizzle Bio Inc start up and posted it within minutes here. It WAS a lucky find, only from seeing 'CEO@ Cizzle bio inc USA'. on Bill Behnkes Linkedin page and well, adding 2+2 from there. None of us of course should have to be working this stuff out regardless and does damage my view of the BODs transparency with retail shareholders.
Must’ve been a lucky find. But then the LinkedIn posts appeared after the information of the US company was fed in to Telegram.
How many “PI’s” searched for new companies in Texas as part of their reading about CIZ. Such an obvious search is it?
I didn’t until it was posted here for the outsiders.
Who was fed that and by whom? That just coincided with a nice rise in SP before the Placing announcement nicely.
Whoever “found” that info didn’t find it the day company was registered or if they did sat on it.
So remember when you’re looking at any new share to trade or invest in to search the database in Texas for any new company registrations DYOR. Unless you’re an insider lucky enough be invited to partake in placings. (Not many PIs have that type of funding available)
Brond..?! Forward selling? False rises, Brokers?
I'm not going to be the one who tells you about Santa!😁
With the limited stock issued (a good thing as keep dilution down) its unlikely the "new investor" will be over 3% for a TR1. But you never know.
I am sceptical regarding the forward selling. Hear that a lot, but if you have evidence of this, go to the FCA as that is of course insider trading, illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Shouldn't be hard to trace the money. Hemce why i am sceptical.
The share price rose becuase of anticipation of news, and Benkhe having been found to have set up ciz Bio Inc. and his remarks on LinkedIn.
And these do still suggest ciz intents to conduct buismess in the US soon.
But time will tell of course.
Neil 👍
Hi Greend100 & Techtonic
If i may, i will respond tomorrow.
I have a mass of notes, interview comparisons, written documents, questions and answers that i am currently re-visiting, and i intend submitting a further request that the Bod address specific questions.
I would rather give a more informed answer, than a quick response.
Neil
All very reasonable points, Brond, and maybe it is negative confirmation bias on my part.
Just specifically in response to your £600K funding raise, YES , they would do it for a random punt, because I know that select shareholders are courted and given first dibs on these - because, as OAPk alluded to, they know there'll be a (false ) rise to let them out with a profit - if they haven't already forward sold.
I'll be surprised if there's any sticky hands in this raise, although, if so, that would add a lot of weight to it... Maybe they have done it for that maybe they have done it for their benefit..and if it was Biotechne, this would rocket.
First post was cut off...
Question is, are there some other steps ciz has ommited to tell us about? That is why they need to communicate better.
Oh , on China.
Ive said before, lets focus on getting this LDT working in the US first. If it works, China will want it. Whether they will get it likely depends on politics, IP protection, partnerships and a multitude of other things. There is a large enough market elsewhere. I cant see anyone having invested purely on China, though it does lead to some of the larger estimates on share price.