Member Info for 13thmonkey

Mice 12mg/kg cohort 4 is 200mg/kg so as usual touk is so wrong it'd be funny.

Not even a Sunday scientist, spent a month looking at the wrong companies ticker.

just thought i'd laugh at the article before someone comes along and treats it like actual research. not posting it as it's that ****e that traffic should not be driven to it.

Ok so this is a stiffle an alcyst but... 7x revenue seen as cheap, recent deal.

https://endpts.com/biogen-to-buy-neurology-drugmaker-reata-for-7-3b-in-cash/

I'm not sure what the two have to do with each other, a bid (hostile or otherwise) will start once the bidder thinks that the risk of not bidding is greater than the risk of bidding, and this might occur if they are convinced of the safeness and/or efficacy before publication much like many here are convinced that we are in a good position.

Whether a hostile bid would succeed has been covered before, but they can try whenever they feel like, and whenever it suits their risk profile, which will differ company by company.

They are at 15x our Mcap, no revenue to speak of like us, do they really have 15x the potential? I suspect that the truth lies between the two, we are under and they are overvalued.

I've done some sums on the black mass and what it's components could be sold for a 8,300 tons per year, and revenue wise it could be c£70M, add in maybe £10m for processing into constituent parts, and assume that gate fees cover the running on the plant, another £10m for other random expenses and £50m per shift is achievable, mostly profit. I see the £26m Mcap as being very much on the low side and once processing should be good for a rerate as the accounts come in.

What are the two MCaps and actual and predicted revenue over the next 2 years? I suspect a massive disparity.

Well it's what this round or the next one.

And you've ignored any other pharma.

What do they update it with? what assumptions? finding DLTs, not finding DLTs, assume 1 patient dies and needs replacing?

Being entirely in the dark is not that surprising when you actually think about it.

The patients are very ill, one could easily die, at which point investigations as to whether that is an extreme DLT needs to take place.

Or they find DLTs in which case they add 3 more people to see if it is a one off or common.

So either of those can both add to the length of a phase, or end the trial, so what dates do you give, the expected dataes with no issues (inferring there being not DLTs found ever), or do you assume that some issues will occur.

Try and think before knocking things, there are many variables.

Interesting that it can do that!

Any view of the sources it's used for that? I've seen these tools use a different avct and a different hci to provide insight into avacta.

Watch the last meeting, they explicitly said they wouldn't go public until they were ready.

Eggy, you've had 10 days off, did TW stop paying you, or have you come back to start the fud off as it's HCI time?

I think only 1 and 5 were RNSd. 5 because of the delay.

Nigel, up until the 28th June there was a slight drift downwards, mid 2.2 down to 2, with a range. Then a sudden drop after that, so your complaint about the SP is an interesting interpretation.

However you could also look 4 months back and then we're looking at a 60% rise. So there are many interpretations, but a 34% decline over 3 months is not a great one. 10% over 2.5 months and then 25% in 2 weeks is more realistic.

BV, hi from elsewhere, my point was that comparing the productivity to live meat is not the point, everything you've said I agree with though.

Surely the comparison should be with other artificial meat generation methods? Otherwise it's like comparing the MPG of a car and a walker.

The use of artificial meat is predicated on it being a lower CO2, more sustainable, ethically better means of producing a providing animal protein. Those are the arguments, not a higher yield than a cow in a field.

The cost will come down with scale, greenness can be assured with their choice of power supply, the ethical issue looks after itself.

I thought the protocol for MTD determination was once a DLT had been reached, recruit 3 more and try again, and if another (the same??) DLT is seen then MTD is declared at the level below. I assume this repetition to minimise the the risk that it is a false positive and just to do with that individual, and perhaps unrelated.