Member Info for Bobbler

Just playing devils advocate here.

Is it actually an independent peer reviewed paper?, as by their own admission The authors confirm that the Principal Investigator for this paper is Sam Francis and that he had direct clinical responsibility for patients.

From my understanding he was running the trial.

By definition, a scientist or Principal Investigator (PI) cannot peer review their own trial results. Peer review requires evaluation by an objective, independent expert in the same field who was not involved in conducting the specific study.

Paul1828, Al Carns is the Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak. He currently holds the Government post of Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Minister for the Armed Forces).

He summited Everest last year with one of Defence Holdings NED’s both served in the same UKSF unit.

I imagine they are able to speak easily with the right people in the U.K. MOD.

Hi Balliff, Either would have been okay. To be honest I’m more than happy with the finish as it is. Hopefully this will start to build a head of steam over the coming weeks. Good weekend to you all.

I’m going for a 27p at close of play today.

I think we should see a nice rise again today. The closer we get to end of dosing the less risk. People never want to miss out on the chance of a multi bagger.

Potnak is spot on ref Riverfort.

I suspect there will need to be a raise, but a couple of million on good news flow is’nt a big deal. I’m still more negative than I used to be. But despite my own sentiments I thought I’d buy 10,000 more this morning anyway! After all, there are no pockets on a shroud.

Blockbuster, if what you say is the case, and they are very much in the driving seat. Based on the decisions concerning consolidation and the Riverfort financing deal, I would say the chances of them steering a billion £ sale are slimmer than an eel on a diet of Ozempic jabs.

The shareholders decide on whether to except any offer made. They don’t call the shots with regards to if an offer is accepted. If it was the case of without them there is no business then it’s worth nothing, it’s the molecules / iP that holds the value now.

Evening BB, key point is, when you only hold 1 or 2 percent, you don’t get to choose the exit figure, regardless of how much effort you have put in. They gave up ownership / control of the company in exchange for financing the business.

Having done a bit more research I’m going update my OPINION on what i think we can / will achieve. If the tox study results are good then I believe it’s worth circa £2 per share. I think there’s a chance we will get taken out this year for somewhere near the £300m, similar to SAD’s suggested value. And to be honest I would be very happy with £2 as should everyone else who is invested here.

Well said PCS1954, obviously we all want SAR to succeed. But we have to remember where we are in the grand scheme of things. Overall Probability of Success (Phase 1 to Approval): <10–15%. Yes big pharma has deep pockets, but we’re going to have to produce something pretty special to attract the numbers being thrown around on here.

Okay Laz, my bad.

Hi Balliff, no it wasn’t a biotech and it was 25 years ago.

Laz, having sold a company I know exactly how a buy out works. I just don’t believe it’s correct to start stating completely unrealistic figures.

Enough said.

Laz, your waffling. You said that after completion of tox study, an offer of £5 would be cheap. For it to be cheap would suggest that an MC of £700m is cheap. On completion of the tox study, the only additional value will be what the market perceives a single p2 molecule is worth. The market places no value on 737, it was returned and as yet no serious interest.

So to suggest £5 on completion of the tox study would be buying on the cheap is disingenuous.

People who make these comments are often those bailing out when it gets near £1.

Are there any examples of this being achieved? That the point. 20p-£5 on tox completion and you say that’s cheap? If so then we should expect the SP to be north of £5. After all the MC is effectually the company value.

Laz: your words

“I would be surprised if we were not on the radar of the entire Industry and would not be shocked if, on successful completion of 1801 Tox, a pharma made a bid in an attempt to get Sareum on the cheap. By cheap, I mean £5 per share.”

Hence my request for examples.

Hi Laz, I hope you’re correct but I don’t agree. Past errors and mistakes will always resonate with a buyers perception of the likelihood of success. Let’s not forget this still has a long way to go after the tox study. That requires a buyer to have a lot of faith, and believe that will have been corroded to some degree. If it wasn’t then I would expect to have seen some significant II’s money in the pot.

But I’m happy to be guided, are there any examples of AIM equivalent business’s going from 20p to £2.5-£5 on the back of tox studies?

Personally, only my opinion. Because this has taken 20 years now to get to where we are, still early stage and high risk, I don’t believe it will go beyond £1 per share. It will either be taken over sub £1 or it will fold. Even if the molecules are licensed I don’t see a huge upfront, to high risk even after current tox study. There have been to many errors along the way, which ultimately will make any suitors sceptical. To be honest anyone coming on board now including II’s would be happy to agree to x5 return.

Let’s see if we can sustain a continuous upward trajectory.