The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
That means nothing, they could have 10bn in issue the price would be lower and the end price would be lower but the Mcap would end up the same.
That's on a wholly new drug isn't it touk? Not packaging an old drug.
And all of these points are the point Gallmat, why repeatedly lie about your trades, in a negative or positive fashion. Once is ego, several times is an agenda.
He's sold twice. It's all bs.
You can sell the shares, generally speaking, personally cash, i'd rather not have the risk of the buyer's back book of potential law suits etc.
Not going to talk about values.
But once a value has been agreed you get the appropriate cash if it's a cash deal or shares in the buyer if it's a share deal to the appropriate value, it a mix. You can sell early you might not get full value, but if you sit and wait you'll either have some other shares to sell or some cash.
It's made by many smaller pharmas as it's off patent.
So do we have the license for these affimers too? All affimers?
Cleaving is independent of the drug that's attached to it.
It's just a sample size calculation and the error bars that you get based on sample size.
So if, for instance, you took a sample at it suggested that something was happening only 5% of the time you'd need a large sample to be sure that it was real, but if you were seeing something happening 50% of the time then the sample size could be a lot smaller.
It's a counter to the bs of they'd need 1000's to be happy, when the increase in the accuracy you get going from 100 to 1000 is very small. So 100 is fine, in fact 50 is plenty to know it's working.
Any evidence for that Touk, or speaking from your rear end yet again? Statistically there's next to no difference between 100 and 1000, if you determine that 80% are helped then a sample size of:
30 gives you 80% +/- 14%, i.e. it could be as low at 66% or as high as 94%
100 gives you 80% +/- 8% so 72-88%
1000 gives you 80% +/- 2.5% so 77.5-82.5%
Providing it is efficacious then the sample size does not have to be very large to give a very good indication of how good it is. If it is only 10% effective then you start to see reasons to hold:
30 gives you 10% +/-10.74 i.e. it could be as bad a not being at all effective up to 20%
100 gives you 10% +/- 6% so 4-16%
So even at just 100, with a low level of effectiveness you can still be pretty certain about how well it works.
Yeboha, except for about a dozen threads down, where yesterday someone started a thread with that very name.
It may well have use in non-FAPa producing tumours, which are not insignificant, however they'll take a hit because of this, expect dirty tricks.
**** covering for the next ppi-esque scandal, they did their duty, or what could have been considered duty with hindsight and legal pressure.
At some point the risk needle will move from being 'greater than our risk profile for investment' to bring 'greater than our risk profile for our competitors to own it'.
It may wobble around that point for a while, but it'll flip at some point.
The data shared is just data, we've drawn conclusions from them, for the full study they will draw the conclusions that's what they can't do before it's complete.
Do men need vaccination against cervical cancer?
Viking, you asked a long time ago why people thought you were an idiot, this post, and many like them, is why.
1. Yes if there was no cleaving going on then there'd be no MTD found, but the balance of what's leaving the body would show pure 6k and therefore nothing was happening, ethically the safety board would stop the trials.
2. If there was cleaving only at the tumour site you'd get some 6k leaving the body but you'd also get no MTD
3. MTDs will occur when 6k cleaves AND the released dox hits something else that is not the tumour, or 6k itself is found to be toxic, this hasn't happened so 6k isn't toxic and not much pure dox is floating around.
4. They have literally released the figures of how much dox is present in the tumour environment and it's much much more than you'd get with straight dox.
So 1 is not the case, 2,3 and 4 are true based on the figures provided.
Thanks, I could see that it was going to be 'a lot' didn't think quite that much.
Anyone got any idea of the market size, I can see that it's bigger than where we are now that's easy, but what's the TAM?