Member Info for 13thmonkey

400 patients a year and increases in life that are almost statistically un-measureable.

Meanwhile we won't test for prostate cancer.

It already improving outcomes, the PFS cannot be lower than the existing PFS given previous data, the side effects are sufficiently lower that life time limits for dox have been removed.

Sneaky alderbran, encouraging the traders to sell, then hopefully they get locked out. And we'd have to put up with their whining and the enhanced fud levels.

BV if that were the case, with no proposed method of action as to how it is the case, then surely it's not beyond the wit of man to maybe, reduce the dose, or something like that? Just push the syringe a little less. I must be a genius if they can't think of that.

At least I started following the right ticker unlike touk.

The whole point of investing is surely to get in before the proof, else everything is priced in and you're buying no future growth. This is significantly lower risk than any other biotech. Is it zero, no, but it's much much lower as so much is proven.

I note you don't actually challenge any of my points, just a hand waving statement.

To my mind the greatest risk here is that NP act as a cabal and actively refuse to engage hoping that we'll fail to finance through to being cashflow +ve. However that would require that none of them broke ranks when the stakes are as high as they are I think this is unlikely. Whoever breaks ranks wins, and can cause a lot of pain for the others.

Other random risks, AI discovers something similar, it'll still need trials etc. we're 3-4 years ahead on that.

Precisely.

Touk What?

My post appeared to have disappeared, seems to be back now, however both the originator and craig, missed out significant facts.

1. It's a delivery mechanism, the mechanism is proven in 6k.

2. the active element is already proven

3. we deliver the active element.

Many of the 'concerns' that AI has are simply not valid or not as likely as for a normal drug.

I know you want to hear the negatives, but this is much much less risky than normal drug development.

At least 2 posts have been deleted, both were just facts.

Craig, we are a delivery mechanism, not a novel method of action. The active ingredient is something that is known to work. So a lot of the risk is mitigated, if we deliver naked active compound to site then it will do what it does. If we deliver it to site then the question is how much do we deliver.

Both of these questions are answered from AVA6000, we can deliver, we can deliver the naked version, and we can deliver at concentrations that dwarf the normal concentrations.

None of that is taken into account, it talks about 6103 as if it were a novel active compound, it does not recognise that delivery concept is proven and works better in humans than in PDX.

How can dilution raise the valuation?

On twitter

Pal you mentioned we were rampy. Hence you must have an idea of what is not 'rampy'. Research isn't about the biology of cancer drugs, it's about how much they sell for.

I gave my opinion, 10bn for the platform is cheap, if only one BP is interested then that should still be achievable, with more than one it'll be reached easily.

Bigthings, if you think that getting up to a fiver is rampy then i'd have to ask what research have you done?

The big question is how much is a platform worth that can make chemo drugs a lot safer, and can bring back drugs that are out of patent to being in patent, and kill off the competition of the generics. If you think that's 2bn, then why are single drugs selling for substantially more without any utility to the rest of a big pharma's portfolio of chemo drugs. Personally i'd see 10bn as being cheap.

Needles have been made pointy.

Potential aquirers will not care which platform we are on, unless they are VC or similar. Pharma will not give two hoots, if they don't already know that we exist and the outline of what we are doing then they are not paying attention and are not aquisitive in this space.

Is yours meant to be offputting, yes that's precisely what it's meant to be, engineered in fact to be a negative statement where none was needed.

So why are you asking here? The last update it could be inferred that they have submitted IND, until then there is nothing. So I ask are you confused about where you are and who you are talking to?

Are you simple?

Not pre-recorded