Touk, thanks for proving my point, without context the number of times more is irrelevant, and for the lower level data more so. That context is not ready yet, but it has been indicated that we are going in the right direction. In mice there would have been cleaving with free FAPa, less so in humans as we have less of it. So I guess you are saying you want to wait for the data?
Glad something is going towards prostate cancer
Tell me Joe, how much better, in terms of treatment is 20v the dox to blood ratio than 5x the dox to blood ratio. We know that did has a short half life, apparently c 5min, we know that Ava has a half life that's a lot longer c 4.5hrs apparently. So given some concept of saturation of the tme, half life, and increased dosage, how much better is 20x than 5x , without understanding the maths, but I do understand some of variables, it could be twice as good, could be four times as good, could be ten times as good.
That's the challenge behind the X times as much, what does it actually mean? The answer is nothing, it means nothing without the context, in fact it means less than nothing because the wrong conclusions can be drawn.
That help you understand the problem with bull **** constant whining for data that doesn't actually tell you what you think it tells you.
Sell then, then you won't be concerned.
It's more difficult than you believe, at what point is it too much and offers no benefit.
Sorry replies crossed, I'm sure they'll tell us that, or how much better it is which is actually the more important result, just increasing dox by a factor 20 may mean it's 20x better or 5x better we don't know that interaction, they will probably tell us but it's not actually useful to know, but they'll release that when they are ready.
What does a change of 10% with a p value of 0.03 mean, with a sample size of 6 and confidence intervals from 8 to 15. What do the 6 data points underlying that mean if you don't have the context, b which you won't.
What you need is the interpretation of that, which might be that it's 50% better than std dox, with a statistically significant result with lower levels of side effects.
That's not data, that's information, that's what's price sensitive, that's what it's useful to tell PIs, the level above fund managers with specialist staff would find useful, the medical specialists/FDA would get to see the individual results.
The implications of that data are price sensitive, the data itself I'd say isn't.
[but I want to see the data, even though it's not my field and I won't really understand it.]
The fund managers will/should have access to people who are truly scientifically literate in their funds fields, so sharing it with them makes sense, sharing it with PIs openly, not so much.
1M trend, up
3M trend, up
6M trend, up
The only one that's not up is the last few days.
Is there some culling of posts going on? there was definitely a post mortem post that's no longer around?
they spent less than 1/2 of what they raised on Launch...
What's the point in not being calm... we have no influence, what will be will be. This happened in June, I was annoyed then that I didn't read the signs and sell early but there was logic behind the reasons for the drop that made sense at the time. And I though, as I assume others did, that there was potential.
A few weeks before I thought about writing to someone, I think I may have messaged one of the usual interviewers to 'have a word' should have said sod that I'm not their mentor, if I'm not happy with it then act without compassion. That's a lesson learned and that's all we can do.
Launch is cash generative so an ever increasing cash pot, it has the ability to get stuff into market, I believe we have a technology stack that will let us put things into that channel that have a material advantage over other things in that channel or are unique, I believe that without that purchase it would have been 10x harder to get any Dx products into the market. So for whatever the cost was they get income, and the ability to actually do something with Dx without complicated risky investment, building the whole infrastructure for 1-2 lines (to start with) is more risky than having the whole infrastructure working, in place, mature and adding 1-2 product lines.
A lot of belief in there, but that's my risk, but my belief is based on the purported ability of Affimers to be tuned to be very sensitive, that has been demonstrated, we had a very accurate test, should we have looked at a different element of covid, probably, how many other targets are this variable not many. Tactical mistake, strategy still sound. Can I envisage a world where there are temperature stable and long shelf live tests for a wide range conditions sat in doctors offices, such that they can test a patient there and then in one visit not 2, yes I can, and I can see how there would be a nett cost saving and overall benefit. Can I see tests for sepsis being useful, yes. I can see a market, and I can see a technology to fill that market need better than it is currently being filled. Could I see how we were going to make, market, sell and support it, no, but I can now.
I the message to II's might be, look this is what we have, we're talking to x,y,z you can see where this is going, do you want to be on the train or not? If you do then there's the open market, I'll leave to work out what you think this could be worth compared to where we are now.
Is there a case for saying we'll issue a small number of shares at a premium (or not) if you want volume, but all that will do is pop a load of cash in the bank, and cash is only a part of the problem, to go it alone there's a lot of structure and presence to be built out and that will take time, alongside the trials. Let's say that they double the number of shares available at todays price and raise circa £450M, all that most of that will do for at least 12-18months is sit in a bank, maybe a downpayment on production facilities etc. offices, lots of long lead time stuff, and hiring of people We don't need more cash yet, we need a higher SP so that more cash is less diluting in the future.
Launch would have dev costs built into their running costs, so it could all be included in that now.
Neutronic, I believe you are asking what other reasons are there for going down that path other than knowing that funding for tx is on its way. And, if it works, then I can't think of one, they must be happy that funding for tx will come or not be needed. They just needed enough to get them to that point. I'm expecting BO or stage payments for 3996, and then probably BO as going it alone is a very very big ask even with the money in the bank.
I thought they were just robo written, so how they get affimer wrong I've no idea.
Your second paragraph might be over egging it, it could easily be until disease progression stop them participating and that just hasn't happened yet. It needn't mean it's been stopped in it's tracks.
agreed, in mice is was 18x and they have more free floating FAPa, so whilst it is a 'wish' it's not outside of the realms of possibility.