Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Where can one buy a retrospectoscope?
I want one!
It is worth blocking the obvious derampers.Keeps things sensible.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. On the back of last Wednesday,s and Thursday,s SP rises, had the RNS come out Friday morning, swiftly followed by Dr. Suzy,s video/post then would we have seen the drop that occurred?
Small investor but keeping the faith.
GLA
One more thing this does not need to be ramped let the derampers do thier thing get the weak out leaving the true investors who can see where this is going to stay.
Hi all glad to see your all still here and the day has been a little brighter for us . Dr suzy delivered a very encouraging and profesional talk today and I have a lot of respect and faith in val
Bojo - should be bozo. It was a phase 1/2 trial, was set up exactly as required and delivered very encouraging results which can be used to progress VAL201. Exactly as per Val's expressed approach.
Great thoughts Grace, keep the views coming!
@BOJO2020 - are you actually aware how Phase I, Phase II, Phase III trials work and why they are separate intervals?
If you are buying/selling because someone on a BB says this will be £10 or 2p next week, then you deserve to lose all of your money you fool.
Grace,
There's not much to add to your post. You do yourself a disservice in your modesty. I tried to tackle points three and four of that particular poster's "concerns" this morning, and you've really reinforced that better than I could. An acute observation that I have made, as yourself, is the appearance of "scientific" posters on here, who like to come on and pick holes in the study design. I'm not sure what their motivation is, but I take solace in their posts, because they do have that motivation, so there must be a driver. It is easy to pull out the limitations of any given study; you've done it succinctly and concisely yourself. As scientists, we can see the potential limitations, and also the opportunities. Peer reviewing with the retrospectoscope is easy. If we had time, we could all pop over to other Biomed forums and ask why they dosed their compounds in combination, and how that may have masked the true effect of their great hopes etc etc, but we chose not too. Because we like to concentrate on our own concerns and interests. I'm not sure of the psychology behind it, but it seems to bring pleasure to those who have been fortunate to have had a scientific education, to strike fear into those maybe less well-versed. I await more data myself, and hope that my personal actions do not encourage or discourage people to invest. However, when there's flagrant whipping up of fear, for no reason other than to satisfy the sad ego of someone who really should take a look at themselves, then it is up to those of us who can shed at least some light to step in. And, to be fair, you're taking the prize for that. So please do keep contributing, because I for one really, really, enjoy your posts.
@ kalps10
Its more the buying and selling due to ramping/deramping that can have an effect on SP. If you can’t connect the two dots then help is also available for that.
And as for your reply about your previous username being something about doing something to someone’s mum, I actually plead you to go back to primary school, thats absolutely where you belong :-)
Sleep well tonight fella
Grace,
I am sorry to say that VAL201 did not cut the mustard. That is either because it did not prove to be effective enough, or the design of the trial did not allow for more significant dosage which would have demonstrated effectiveness and efficacy. In any case, we will now have to wait for more trials to find out what we hoped to fond out from this trial.
I don't think there are any bad guys in this scenario, although a speeding ticket might have been sensible and stopped people getting over excited.
Considering the pipeline that VAL have here, this story may yet have a happy ending.
ATB.
HERE HERE!
If people think Ramping and deramping actually causes the share price to change a huge percent, they really need help.
Just on my final note, placings can be made at current SP if the investor believes in the product (bit of dilution but so what!). Nice thought to sleep on if JV doesn't transpire in time. Better chat on the BB in the evening. Thanks all.
@ Grace
It was more the fact as well that almost all investors were hoping for a £1+ opening...it didn’t materialise and that what set the panic in..the 65p opening was just not what people wanted. And one of the main reasons everyone was hoping for a £1+ opening/day was because of hot air surrounding the news.
I firmly believe, that with the news we’ve had, if opinion on SP movement prior to news had been kept conservative then sentiment would have stayed stable, and therefore the SP would have stayed stable.
Unfortunately AIM has a bad reputation but that reputation is largely due to bad investments strategies and hardcore ramping. Anyone holding here now, including myself, is now aware of the true potential of the company going forward and hopefully we all now see this as a decent ROI as well.
No more panic please/DYOR/DO NOT FOLLOW CONFIDENT SOUNDING RAMPANT POSTS/keep level headed/listen to the knowledgable and serious investors
Good luck all
All these folk seem to need Grace is a decent PR company to follow up the RNS with a concise and educational PR campaign and the right commentary slots .
I am sorry to hear about your chemo and hope all is well now
Thanks bankfool. It’s just been so crazy as I know a lot of the posters who were capitalising in the uncertainty, that were from other boards. One in particular has excellent scientific knowledge and purposely pinpointed any areas of weakness to elaborate upon and spread false information. There are loads of other things that have popped up, but it’s a lot to address them all, also some have already been addressed by Suzy and others here.
Crazy how there was a mass frenzy upon good news...think people thought that it was just a repeat of what happened under old management, which is understandable.
Hi Grace, really good to see a sensible and measured post. You have a knack for saying sensible things just when they are needed.
You might be right and others were expecting a clear and concise RNS, but I would have that would have been unrealistic expectation at the best of times. So many variables when testing on people.
In order to address a few of the issues that have arisen, I thought I’d post something, now it’s a bit quieter. Firstly, the RNS wasn’t as concise and detailed as some had hoped for, which allowed a hoard of people to come and place doubt in people’s minds. Now, I’m not saying that this drug is going to come to fruition at all (I’ll leave my own opinion out of this, as much as I am able to) but i would just like to point out a few of the areas of weakness that have been preyed upon here recently.
1) The sample size is statistically significant. If you don’t believe me, ask mathsprof. Why would pharmas bother spending millions on a trial for it not to be statistically significant. Think about it. The absence of a p value is also a non issue...look at the DDDD results...no p value there.
2) Yes there has been the development of PARP inhibitors (such as olaparib) during the development time of this drug so far. They produce a lot of very nasty side effects indeed. 201 doesn’t even register on the scale for the list of side effects published, they are actually very mild. Trust me, I’ve been through chemotherapy.
3) 54% success rate is good. We couldn’t have achieved much higher, due to the design of the trial. We incorporated too many low doses of the compound, along with two different subtypes of disease (castration resistant and sensitive). If the design had been more targeted then we could achieve a higher percentage, which is what will be done in a follow up phase two trial. Pharmas will be looking at the details in the results, not the overall percentage, so to be honest, we don’t really know exactly how well 201 has actually performed yet. The devil will be in the detail. To translate, this is what Adam is referring to when he’s speaking about the heterogeneity of the participant subtypes (the fact that we have incorporated castration sensitive and resistant...this is exactly why I’ve been telling everyone to focus on the patterns of these individually, as separate entities in the early data for months).
4)PCWG2 criteria is very strict and difficult to achieve for stable disease, so to satisfy this criteria, 201 must have performed well. I was initially a little disappointed at no mention of partial reductions, but as the headline results referred only to the PCWG2 criteria, then this doesn’t cover this area, as will only go as far as saying stable disease at this moment in time. We will know further detail only upon the full results. So the basic upshot is that we don’t know the exact performance yet.
There are other points, but this is already a bit of an essay. I’ll add them to this thread.
Adam, if you’re reading this, I don’t profess to be in the same league as you at all, but would you humour me and discuss the results with me please? :)