Member Info for Benhowell459

Agree Andrew.

It was actually quite amusing hearing them try to push for Rick to agree that FQ might buy out AFP and Rick said something along the lines of FQ's CEO is clever - he won't buy them out.

Cue hesitation from the Roasties and internal reflection about why they asked him to come on the show...

Xtract was mentioned on the Sunday roast by Rick Rule today.

40.52 for our content.

https://audioboom.com/posts/8696680-sunday-roast-featuring-rick-rule-investor-speculator-founder-ceo-of-rule-investment-media-g

Pepe I wouldn't even take 10p if a big gun, let's say Anglo American just for want of an example, were to offer it...*

The potential here is immense.

Potentially huge drills results inbound from Silverking, Zambia

Kakuyu still to be further explored

Western Foreland exploration potential

Morocco the ace in the pack with antimony flying (there is a widespread lack of knowledge of this mineral)

Chilibwe JV progress

Continue regular income from Manica until 2027.

*I jest - I'd take 5p.

We shouldn't be sub 2p for certain though. It's quite frankly rude that we are valued under 20m GBP.

I agree - a happy medium can certainly be found somewhere halfway between where we are now and that period you mentioned, exciting as it was at the time...

Howezap, I respectfully disagree on one (major) point.

"Not sure there is a need to see that kind of approach to PR here with the companies current income stream".

As shareholders, we are not seeing any benefit to this income stream. We have not received a dividend. Our share price remains extremely depressed. The only way we benefit therefore is if Colin utilises that income sensibly and then shouts from the rooftops about the results.

Income without PR means nothing.

It seems GCSU and their CEO have understood that and they've risen 300% off the back of results which could be quite comparable to ours. Colin needs to broadcast that, regardless of whether we need a placing or not.

Not sure about you, but I would like more interest here from outside voices.

As much as I enjoy nattering with Jez, James, NtM, Bob et al about Colin's horses, elephants in Zambia and reminiscing about the halcyon days of 2021/2, I'd quite like to be doing something else in 2026.

Anyway, as it's Friday, I'll wish everyone a good weekend and beat NtM to the ol' "Would want to be out of this over the weekend"

GLA

GSCU MC currently stands at 25m GBP.

Not fully funded. If we hit anywhere near 40-50metres of 3-4% copper, we also should be in that range. If we get 2 sections of 40-50m of continuous copper, we're looking at 30m plus. There's no way we should be languishing under a 10m market cap here, especially if the above is confirmed.

This morning's back and forth is highly amusing. Art, you aren't the first to do this and you certainly aren't the last.

Now, if you could commit to ramping every day until we hit 6p I'd back you. But I don't think we'll see you much once this hits 2-3p.

Of course this has got potential. CB only picks licences with potential. But 99% of them never see production (Colin didn't choose Manica).

Waiting 2 weeks for assays is nothing when you've been waiting 3 years for more drilling at BR, over a year for anything whatsoever at Kakuyu and who knows what going on in the Western Foreland.

So much in our stable but is 81(?) year old Colin the man to drive them forward? He's been very quiet on the RNS and update front over the past 1-2 years...

It does sound positive. Just need Colin to get a move on!

Thanks HBD. Might be easier to try your last idea first. Might speed things up a bit!

I do remember the 30x dose and it made me wonder why we were only allowed to try 75mg in phase 1 in Oz and struck me as uber cautious.

No wonder they want further studies...

Hi HBD, appreciate the response.

I think my angle comes from the clarity required.

You mentioned this:

"Do not exceed more than 2 tablets in 24hrs" or whatever. This gives the consumer some sort of confidence that regulators know where the red line is as opposed to "hey kids, you can eat these things like Smarties!"

In order to establish a quantity to fit "Do not exceed....in 24 hours", in my mind it would be more logical to up the mg dosage in this tox trial right up to say 1000mg to find adverse effects and not as John/Tim seem to be implying, make a batch less pure. I have no idea how you can make the purity of a batch transparent to the consumer. The only thing they can control is number of tablets i.e. the mgs they take. Purity of batch is irrelevant to them.

Anyway, as I said before, I'm sure there is logic to this. I just don't see it. Not for me to decided though and of course there are many more experienced / knowledgeable individuals making these decisions.

I just hope when all is said and done, we are able to come out and say a definitive, clear statement about toxicity (or lack of) at certain levels and we don't confuse matters by talking about % of purity etc. Etc.

Copper at all time highs in the US, while in the UK it's dipped back below 10k/tonne.

As others have said, it would be great to get a(nother) confirmatory RNS to build on the last one which gave us a 100% uplift in the sp.

We are now back into a more sensible range - under 1p with the cash coming in and potential here is a joke. That being said, I'd prefer if we were back over 2p.

The key to that, as has been said before, is building momentum. Would love to see some kind of regularity with drilling news - maybe not on the scale of 2021 which was absurd and over the top but 1 or 2 a week would be great. I don't see a difficulty with this as Colin has now put our fingers in about 5 different pies.

BR modelling update

Kakuyu?

Silver king

Other Zambian licences

Morocco

Not to mention we probably still own Eureka / Kalengwa.

Good summary HBD.

I have two follow up questions.

How are we able to tweak the formula? Surely the formula is set in stone, has been written extensively in multiple patents (IE. Set in stone) and should be the exact same formula throughout phase 1, 2 and 3.

If we change it, does it slightly invalidate results from phase 1 trials?

2. Why are we intentionally making the capsule/tablet/recipe dirty? I absolutely do not understand a "need" to find tox side effects.

If we are clean and safe at 100migs, great. If we are clean at 150mg, great. I have never heard of making a batch "dirty" before. Is there precedent for this?

Related to this, John or Tim stated this batch for the tox studies will be dirtier than ones we use in patients.

What is the point in using different batches? Aren't we doing our excellent molecule a disservice by making it worse? Why don't they just send some baricitinib if we're tweaking it and making it worse...?

It doesn't make any sense to me to use a dirty batch now, then a clean one in patients. But hey ho, I have to believe this is:

A) how things are done

B) Tim and John know what they're doing.

I don't see why we can't just up the migs to get 200mg effects, 300mg effects, 400, 500mg etc. Etc. Until we find some adverse effects.

Surely going higher and saying "WE ARE SAFE UP TO 600MG" would be better than saying we're safe at 50mg, unless you're taking a dirty batch...in which case it might not be...

Father Ted, you either were not on the call or weren't listening.

We did pay legal fees for the acquisition of 737. The rest was free, according to Parker.

There were, according to Parker, multiple approaches for 737 last year. It was with the US pharma so OBVIOUSLY we couldn't do anything. He has said we are now in conversation with multiple possible partners for 737.

It is a good thing we now have control. It needs to be on-licenced with a HEFTY up front OR be assigned a value as part of a buyout.

Not sure if the BoD are keen on the buyout route - all signs are pointing to on-licence but this broken market won't give us the value we all wish for / desire without a buyout (again questions over commercial acumen of the BoD etc and the years we've been plodding along here)

Woodlands -if I could like that post twice, I would.

Hit the nail on the head. So many opportunities to ramp up a following and positivity but all of them missed. And that's why there is no shareholder value. It's not rocket science.

I think my takeaway is pretty similar to others.

The science is very impressive. If anything, the presentation is too science-y. They answered my question about discussions with pharma about 737 and I'm glad we are holding talks. They do know their science - unfortunately I don't really trust the business acumen to deliver. It's a massive shame as there is so much potential. Parker did acknowledge the share price and mentioned ramping up PR, but one investor meet in June isn't going to cut it Stephen, I'm afraid.

The presentation suggests we are best in class. Go out and tell everyone EVERY day, not in one chat in 3 months time. The gap between shareholder expectation and BoD actions is like a chasm.

Hi PCS,

That's a thoughtful post. I agree all is still to play for but the BoD need to acknowledge the frustration and recognise that the current way of operating HAS to change.

- Improve marketing of potential and clinical success thus far

- Improve the way RNS's are written, including some content on potential markets and the titles themselves.

- Consider changing who presents and HOW presentations are done. It is thus far not working to attract appropriate offers (or we wouldn't be here)

There is lots to be positive about (the science) but there is lots to improve (the business and how it is run).

To be clear, apologies if you felt I was attacking you - absolutely not my intention and apologies if it came across negatively. Hard to get the tone right on here.

Thanks again for the thoughtful post. We agree on the whole - there is potential here, we just need to do things better (and faster)

Although I respect everyone's right to disagree, I do find it slightly odd that some think the speed of progress is acceptable.

I stumbled across the below two posts from EXACTLY 5 months ago:

Potnak (25/10/2024)

"Hi PC. In March SP said (via RNS) end

'we endeavour to be in a position to commence a Phase 2a study in psoriasis patients before the of 2024"

They knew the timescales for data readout and they would know how long a tox study would take so why would they put something out that was impossble to deliver on time? I dont think they anticipated this tox study so something changed. Whether data from 1a or a requirement from a prospective partners, possibly both."

I find it extraordinary that timescales can slip so significantly and yet the BoD can shrug it off. They need their words replayed back to them.

Why is progress so slow?

Cobalt - if we are using the UK to do a a tox study, it would answer the question as to why we have taken 20+ years to do anything. We have not learned from our mistakes. The UK is (still) a terrible place to operate unless you have the money to push things through (sad times). Oz worked fine and we should have pushed for P1B in Oz and probably would have made decent progress by now.

If so, it would be a disgrace that lessons about MHRA were not learned and the UK not trusted with 1801.

Re the Investor Meet, I do hope they feel the full force of investor disgruntlement. 18-24 months ago, LTHers were frustrated but were seemingly appeased (duped) by a confident presentation and some positive sentiments from the BoD including form an orderly queue. Whether it was true or not, it has not worked wonders for our share price, which is ultimately all that counts here.

We are at 0.25p old money 20+ years down the line. They should be embarrassed and need to hear this from shareholders.

Desperately want the following question answered:

"The BoD is quoted as saying toxicology studies were start early 2025. Why have they not started yet?"

Alongside the more general:

"What is the plan to provide shareholder value?"

(With the obvious add on: it doesn't seem to be working!)

What have they done with 1801 in the NINE months since P1 trial ended?

All we get is "we are preparing the necessary toxicology studies.

That's it.

All the rest of the update refers to activities in early 2024 or 737.

This isn't an update. Where is the progress with 1801 that was predicted?

Absolute shambles.

Threadbare.

The only update we get is:

"To support its progression to Phase 2 trials, we are preparing the necessary toxicology studies."

Either they can't say anything or they are making as much progress as they have in the previous 20. Slow, slow, slow.

1802 continues translational studies. As it did in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. You get the picture.

I'll come back in 2029, shall I?