Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Reading a bit further through the report, it is clear that the government has already has made several long term investments which go well beyond coronavirus into general planning for pandemics, including a vaccine manufacturing plant which won't even be ready until the end of next year, and funding for the Centre for Process Innovation for manufacturing mRNA and self-amplifying RNA vaccines. Infrastructure is being put in place for vastly improved capability and rapidity in virology and vaccines, a much more conducive and exciting environment for ORPH over the next few years.

Great post Sportstrader. It will interesting to see if the UK government extends its interest in virology beyond the coronavirus response to flu and other diseases. Controversial "vaccine czar", Kate Bingham, is leaving her post this month. Her deputy, Clive Dix, takes over on an interim basis. He said "We must continue to develop our research and response capabilities in the UK"

" it doesn't look like CF is sticking to his original sales pitch."
Valid point NST, but it's surely nothing to be annoyed about, because a sales pitch is not a prediction. If you gave it too much credence then maybe you've learnt something useful? Negative comments are often far more interesting than positive ones, imo, and it's a shame they always attract extreme hostility on LSE. The unoriginal, unpleasant, inappropriate "sell up" advice is a particularly braindead cliche - I propose we play "sell up" bingo from now on, whenever we spot one?
Good luck

" I think you'll find we are more than entitled to be a little pis$ed off."
To be fair, there have been voices on the board suggesting that some of CFs comments are taken with a pinch of salt. They tend to get called names, with "subtle deramper" being a favourite. CF is naturally optimistic and seems to use it creatively as a technique - it's not 100% successful, but he's brilliant at it, and often unexpectedly creates a space for things to happen. Look at what he's achieved, rather than what he hasn't, and try reading between the lines.

A couple of percentage points rise is probably about right, after all we've had many contract wins already this year. The significance though is that it shows COVID work still coming in, on the day before vaccination starts in the UK - plenty more where this came from.

According to the announcement, the offer is expected to be issued at 8.00 a.m. on Monday (7th December).

Existing holders will be entitled to apply for 1 new share for every 64 held (on Dec 1st) at a price of 175p.

If taken up, it only increases each holding by about 1.5%: better than nothing, and at least they included ordinary shareholders, unlike some other companies.

They mentioned fundraising by the Downing Renewables Trust and the Gresham House Energy Fund:
https://www.cityam.com/exclusive-downing-to-raise-200m-for-renewable-energy-fund/
https://realassets.ipe.com/news/gresham-house-energy-storage-fund-raises-120m-to-fund-projects/10049217.article

Gore Street energy Fund are also fundraising: " the Investment Manager continues to evaluate
the commercial viability of flow battery technology and of long duration storage technologies. The Investment
Manager anticipates that prices of vanadium redox batteries (a potential alternative to Lithium-ion) will reduce
from the current level of US$100/KWh within the next few years."
https://www.gsenergystoragefund.com/docs/librariesprovider22/archive/gsf-prospectus-30-november-2020.pdf

"Investors Chronicle: Profits have wobbled at Britain's biggest listed software firm due to a Covid-related £17M bad debt provision. But Sage is a "high-quality stock", committed to investing in it's cloud operations. Revenues have grown 8.5%. Buy. 590p" - The Week

A muppet was arguably an eccentric choice for leader, but it could be worse - Adolf Hitler is back in power:
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/a-politician-by-name-adolf-hitler-wins-election-in-namibia

With the price down almost 3p on the 'Pfizer dip', this may be a good top-up opportunity ahead of upcoming confirmation of the HC study. Could go the other way, theoretically, but odds must be firmly in favour and signs are positive. The go-ahead could have wider implications as it would further establish the UK as the world leader in the COVID fightback, with hVivo front and centre.

"A trial date has been set for October 2021 Excellent news, surely people ...!"

IKR? 10 month countdown? The tension is mounting and excitement levels are sky high as the world awaits The conflict in the Eastern District (of Texas). Tenner needs to tone down his incendiary RNS's

Apologies, not died during phase 3, but caught the virus - some vaccinated people are still going to die, was the point.

"One death due to the vaccine will see it halted ! and as they were recording deaths of people as Covid even though they had terminal illnesses it will not be long !"

People who took all three vaccines have already died during phase three testing, otherwise they would have been 100% successful.

The Europeans don't seem to have any more data than British regulators, and don't seem to be suggesting any different checks, arguing instead just for more reviewing time (another month). MRHA say they have been reviewing data throughout testing, rather than just at the end, working around the clock, which seems more appropriate during a pandemic. The risks are worrying, but have to be balanced against the risks posed by delay.

By "due diligence" I assume you mean whether the patents adequately describe a unique and original process, or fail to. I'm suggesting ME's chosen inclusions and exclusions are key to that, because they could break either way: precise and detailed enough, or leaving sufficient wiggle room for clever lawyers to sow doubt. I believe they tried that line of attack in the Kaist case, and failed miserably, because there was absolutely no wiggle room, and there were also co-defendants who admitted that. Although I'm hopeful the outcome here will be similar, I anticipate wiggles.

I'm suprised the general view here is that MEs statements re patents have little or no bearing on the case. How else do you explain Samsung's approach? The idea that they have "admitted copying", therefore, case closed, is frankly delusional. Samsung have admitted no such thing. What they seem to be implying from their actions so far, is that what they have done is in the public domain, and therefore no-one has a patent on it. I agree that seems a hard case to make, especially when Nanoco's entire raison d'etre is the creation of IP, but it surely largely depends on what is in the patent and what isn't, and that looks to me like Samsung's line of attack. I also agree that the presence of outside backers suggests it is more likely to fail than succeed, but nevertheless it's a very different, and much stronger defence than some here seem to imagine.

This article about a breakthrough in protein topology achieved using AI suggests a new era in drug development which should benefit ORPH ;pmg term: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55133972
There was also an article in New Scientist last week suggesting the success of the mRNA approach to vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna, if confirmed by more testing, is the first time this concept has been proven to work in humans. It opens up a whole range of possibilities for new vaccines and other applications, at much faster development speeds than before. Imperial College's candidate vaccine for COVID-19, currently in trials, is an even more advanced concept: a self-amplifying mRNA vaccine which is much cheaper to produce than the Pfizer of Moderna ones.

"Why would the Pfizer Vax cause a drop here.It will be a minimal order as a political gesture to Vaccinate a few healthcare staff ASAP."
For the reasons I have already given - the first vaccine authorised is a far more significant event than mere test results, and we saw how the market reacted to those. As for "a minimal order", that directly contradicts the governments stated position: "The UK govt, has ordered 40 million doses, 10 million of which are due to be delivered by the end of the year if approval is granted" - The Independent.

" Edleman's alleged comments regarding Nanoco's desire to not give away too much information within the patent documentation. "

Apologies Amerloque, I realise now that this is probably not common knowledge, and it was probably said just once, a considerable time ago. I have tried but failed to track down a source. I think it may have been during an interview, or in response to a question about the patents, when he explained that strategic decisions have to be made when seeking to protect IP. We did briefly discuss it on this board at the time too, IIRC. Can anyone else confirm that he said something like this? Thanks.

Valuations are interesting, but the estimates are so varied, we don't even seem near a consensus range, let alone a likely amount. More interesting perhaps, is how the market would react to a successful outcome, and what Nanoco would do with the proceeds. A few years ago the SP hit about £1.90 on the mere expectation of breaking into the display market.