Member Info for 13thmonkey

So approach Alistair yourself? They put the effort in to create and moderate a group, make contact, with though how it might work. Who would you invite from here? Would want him to see the conversations here?

They organised it, so why shouldn't it be there?

So they weren't real people? You'll never ever get all members of a group to recognise representation.

Ophidians nose is out of joint as he got kicked from that group for exposing personal financial information about members of that group, he did this, imo, because he wasn't invited and that hurt his ego, he's toxic as we found out here ages ago, and doesn't know everything he professes to.

Hey just reporting on the most vocal member of that debate

The ***** is q-u-i-n-t no idea why that is blocked.

not quite, one member 'cue' claims to be ex pharma but constantly refers to the fca and not the fda, he's in intensity, similar position to us, (risk in fact), old drug new targeted delivery mechanism, they'll need ph3, have merck involved but no offers etc. therefore counselling its a risk. his position of more likely to fail than not is still wrong, and that wrongness probably applies to intensity too (as he explained it), perhaps it's not the high 90%'s that some of us here think, but it's certainly >50% imo if you understand, not sure that he does or wants to.

there was stuff before that that i've not looked at, he's the one carrying on, doubt he's tw, more like the old *****, my bio is better than yours with prtg.

I popped in there, seems to be someone saying lots of trials fail, and someone saying this is different. At least that was the tail end of it, and if the 'fails' poster hadn't realised why that was less likely (he still thinks fail is more more likely than sucdess) then no points were taken on board.

Thanks for copying and pasting something that's been highlighted with a red dot just above your post.

Ticino, the outside of the tumour contains FAP-a, for those cancer types that over express it, so the warhead is delivered to the right place and attacks the shell, it does not work on a cell by cell basis.

There are cancer types that do not express much FAP-a, these have been highlighted in many of the documents from avacta, so there are plenty of types of cancer to work on.

Ph2 would be a few tens of millions, not hundreds of millions.

At that point it will require Ph3 testing, to ensure that it hasn't effected the action of the drug. But it's not like there isn't enough to get started on.

It's a platform that can deliver any drug with an appropriate structure that can be attached to the linker, to a FAP-alpha rich target. If the target is not FAP-a expressing or thedrug cannot be linked to (hence velacde analogue not straight velcade) then it cannot be pro'd.

There may be other linkers that hit other targets, or can attach to other dugs but this is what we have for now.

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?