Member Info for 13thmonkey

But the rhinocloud part of DVG is integral to all of the sub entities, so it's all or nothing or a license for that element which will only help the remainder.

Two things need to true for it to be considered for luekaemia.
1. Doxyrubicin needs to be a treatment for it.
2. The disease in question needs to be expressing FAPa at some, to be determined, level.
And the patient needs to be diagnosed probably late next year.

CO back to your earlier point, and something that may influence your thinking on your last post, the error bars are likely to be min mean max as opposed to 1std dev. With those sample sizes no statistician would use SD it's just too small to be representative of the sub-population. That narrows the range significantly if true. I'd also suggest that there is enough to test the hypothesis that all tumors are the same in terms of FAPa and there is a statistical difference even with those small sample sizes as the differences are large from top to bottom of the chart. Confidence intervals about the size of the difference would be large though.

Why is 'this market' important, not planning on selling any time soon, they are setting themselves up nicely, lots of different income streams from a core foundation, not beholden to any one client. In 12-18 months when the market has turned and higher multiples are more common then we'll have had 12-18 months of growth behind us. What will look like, no idea, but at a minimum £1m in profit and a 16 multiple so middle of the pack will get us to 0.5p. What the profit levels could be from multiple territories? 5 territories at £50k/month, that's only £3m. I'm happy to wait, meanwhile they are covering costs and expanding.
If you are trading, or need immediate cash then you'll have a problem in this market, but you'll have that problem with practically any share.

£8m is not a mentally high valuation. At a 10x PE that needs £800k profit, and it's a very very scalable solution in each market with a high barrier to entry as the tech would need building with a low cost to the consumer and minimal friction for them to initiate spend.

Then don't tell us the other half, just say it's 700k and that's that. We don't need to know the 900k figure if we aren't getting 900k. All it does is create distrust that they shouldn't be feeding.

Bitl you missed out mentioning LTH in somewhat random points in the word soup.

They need to be clearer with their figures, 900k from IGS with a proportion going to IGS, don't tell us that, tell us the amount ex IGS, or an approximate figure if it's variable based on the mix of services used.
Muddying the value like this does then no favours and provides a chink to be worried away at by various groups.

An opinion is that it would not be allowed to continue if it just went in and came out the other end untouched.

There is a chart in, I believe, the latest (and previous) avacta presentations which shows FAP by cancer type.

Yes there is a limited subset of cancer types that this will work for, but it's still many (c15? from memory) which is plenty to go at in market terms and plenty of benefit for patients.

Soundsrisky, I too do not 'get it' when big pharma would rather pay a lot more for a proven tech than pay perhaps 1% of that for something unproven but with potential, they've got to have a greater than 1% chance of being right. Admittedly it adds to the complexity of their business, greater headcount, calls on funding, what to do with people when it fails? But for 'special circumstances' this can be managed.

Had I been aware of that level of cash burn i'd have been out, that's just ridiculous. More fool me for not looking more closely.

it wouldn't, but it would to be BoD assuming they remain involved.

Why?

Ah back to the house?

You understand that the company gets zero money from you when you buy? They've benefited in no direct way by you buying?

Why none of them haven't?

Expand? You're making the claim, justify it.

Still here, they still have the potential, how they fund that will, I suspect, be painful, but less painful than taking the hit. Bottom drawer.

If there is as much potential as it is being said that Merck thinks there is, we are currently pocket change.