Member Info for BobsSocks

"Its too early for a patent number yet apparently. The application needs to be formally published by the patent office before its publicly available."

Assuming the initial filing is via the UKPTO this would not prevent the company itself from giving you the application number such that when it was published you could do a search based on that application number.

https://www.search-for-intellectual-property.service.gov.uk/

Yes it will take some time for the online record to be updated but when it is you will find zero information beyond that number, the inventor/owner and the priority date.

That publication will likely cause a lot of flapping about. Woot! We have patent. No. You do not. You have an application.

As CEO Tim told you in the presentations wot you have listened to no details about the content of the application or the back and forth between the company and the patent office will not be made available to you for 18 months.

As CEO Tim also told you moving to grant is not a walk in the park and I very much doubt that Tim, as CEO, is going to give you a blow by blow update on progress or lack of during those 18 months.

Hopefully he will, might get an examination report in about six months. However, for me, this is an anomaly of the Patent System.

I know of one company who filed, spent 18 months telling investors were going really well and then the case file was published and the application had been rejected at least three times because MOPP.

The CEO of that company told his investors the UKPTO was being nasty to them and the EPO, via the PCT would be much easier. It was not.

If CEO Tim has filed via the UKPTO he will have to file via the PCT 12 months from the priority date if the UKPTO grants or if it does not to obtain World rights or maintain the claims.

His talk of 20 years of protection is CEO Flim Flam. There is no protection without grant. End of.

Also the claim by Sebastien that his results prove that they will succeed is naive. The patent office does not care if you think your results say that your stuff does what you think it does.

They want Novelty, An Inventive Step and Industrial Application.

Have a look through this, previously mentioned, lot...

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=+Sylviane+Muller

Global Dossier links.

There may be a, qualified, success but they are outnumbered by the fails.

At CEO Tim says. It is not easy. Thanks Tim.

"Murine models of chronic inflammatory diseases.These models notably include a rat model of experimental autoimmune neuritis for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, ..."

Nice one Marty130. Have you got a link to the Paper? Sorry about that. Being a Scientist I do like a good read rather than a random quote from some random on an investment forum.

Aha. Jonah58 has stepped up with...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9199391/

A couple of adds,

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11802973/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9740613/

I should note the 'disclaimer' provided by pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health."

It's the same sort of thing that Proactive and The Roast apply to their podcasts.

There is also one from the company themselves,

https://www.immupharma.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Muller-et-al-AR-2008.pdf

Again the same sort of disclaimer given by NIH should apply here. Someone saying they got certain results under certain conditions is of use but until it is verified by peer review or medical trail the claims will remain unverified. It is nice to see statements of interest.

From the last link as hosted by Immunpharma...

"Patients. Male and female subjects (age 18–70 years) with an established diagnosis of SLE according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria (12) and with elevated titers of anti-dsDNA antibodies (⬎50 IU/ml) at screening visit) were eligible. If subjects were receiving oral corticosteroids, the daily dose could not exceed 10mg."

This is 2008 and yet in 2025 Sebastien in the presentations from Proactive and The Roast is telling us that steroids were the reason that the results were messed up. Given Sylviane Muller pointed out that possibility to the company 17 years ago perhaps Sebastien should do a review of the previous science.

"Without wishing to be condescending (which I am not) you could start by asking chat gpt about it."

Gosh. Darn. I thought you might be able to reference a paper or other scientific article published by the company itself that explained all of this stuff in their own words rather than some regurgitation from an LLM that would put words it had been fed into what it considered to be the right order..

Maybe they can do that in their next presentation rather than hoping us proles will find the right answer by asking a hallucination machine to quote incorrectly from articles that do not exist.

I can assure you that, for the giggles, I have on occasion ask a chatbot about its opinion of a company and had their PRN's vomited back at me with the suggestion that everything is super good amazing multi-bagger scenario.

Then I ask it some other questions and it changes its mind before I point out some other things whereby it apologises for being wrong and promises not to do it again.

Not wishing to be condescending. Obviously I am. Anyone, especially a Scientist, who relies on a chatbot for investment advice better hope the herd are doing the same.

"Check it out, it is fundamental to the mode of action P140 and will not prevent the formation of appropriate new B cells when presented with an antigen challenge by, for example, an infection. Calm it down, but it still works. "

Excellent!. Where can I check it out?

"That might be clever but to my mind if you do not target the B cells that are producing the autoimmune response then there is not much point and, as I suggest, there is the possibility that normalizing the count will result in a greater population of rogues that negates the original premise."

Here's another one for you. Sorry if it is Scientific again rather than how much multi-bagging will be going on and therefore boring.

Let's say your normal B-Cell count is 246 so P140 regulates you at 246. Then you get infected with a nasty and your body tries to go into overdrive to kill off the nasties.

But P140 says you can only have 246 B-Cells because that is the normal count. Again according to the Science words in the presentations this is what P140 does.

Indeed Sebastien is keen to state that immune suppressants knock out all the B-Cells whilst P140 regulates them at a 'normal' level. However when you are infected I would hazard a guess that they go way above normal.

Unfortunately P140 stops that so you die.

I am sorry, not really, if this upsets you but that is my take of the words that were used in the presentations. If you can quote something that avoids such an interpretation then I would be all ears.

"WTF are you on about, maybe listen to the presentation?"

Hmmm. Yes. I did. Both Proactive and The Roast. Unfortunately being something of a Scientist, with flakes, I was more interested in the Science rather that the multi-bagger prospect.

As I suggest my take on the Science as described by Sebastien was that P140 normalizes the overall B-Cell count. There was no mention of targeting specific B cells.

That might be clever but to my mind if you do not target the B cells that are producing the autoimmune response then there is not much point and, as I suggest, there is the possibility that normalizing the count will result in a greater population of rogues that negates the original premise.

Again. Have they demonstrated that normalizing the level has an effect on an auto-immune response?

...Normalizing the immune system has any impact on auto-immune conditions?

Sebastien make much of a muchness of too much, too little and just right with reference to B cells with the suggestion that P140 makes things just right as opposed to suppressants that just knock everything down.

My take on B cells was that they end up being programmed to label supposedly foreign bodies for attack by the immune system and sometimes get it wrong. Naturally I am a bit in the dark on this one.

However it strikes me that if within a population of B cells some are targeting the body whilst some, or most, are targeting the baddies then adjusting the overall level using P140 will not achieve much. The rogues are still present.

Furthermore my waving hands understanding is that B cells or the immune system in general is tailored to respond to threats. If a specific set of B cells are seeing the body as a threat then don't they get self selected for production by the immune system.

As a follow on from that if P140 is normalizing the overall population of B cells without regard to their type would this not end up self selecting the bad ones?

I assume that some here will kick off with the not invested, wants to get in cheaper, or similar accusations but as someone with psoriasis, sure no biggy if you don't mind greasy cream, I'd like to see something that would give the vacuum cleaner a rest.

To that end and to avoid false hope I would like to see some actual evidence that normalizing the overall population of B cells actually have any impact on an autoimmune response rather than it being a wow look P140 makes the numbers right.

I'm sure that is very clever but if I end up with the right number of B cells and my skin continues to flake off then I might feel that someone has over promised whether or not I was a super responder to P140.

As a final thought if it is the case that rogue B cells are targeting the body would it not make more sense to come up with anti-rogue B cells that target the rogue B cells?

Perhaps someone can pass this one from an amateur over to Sebastien and Laura. I should say I do not follow the present spiel as it stands but if it all runs on antigens and markers then why not identify the B cells that are marking the body for attack and mark them for attack in the same way we do with viruses.

Then the other B cells will go nuke them and P140 will boost the population back to the just right level.

I'm guessing, again as an amateur and getting the details wrong, the thing to be attacked is labelled by a B-cell with a keyed antigen with an 'eat me' sign on the outside and then the rest of the stuff eats it.

The 'key' is the opposite of the 'barrel' and perhaps not precise.

So you flood the body with 'bits' that are 'barrels' for the parts of the body you don't want to be attacked with 'eat me' labels on the outside. They go plug into the rogue B cells keys which then get eaten and normalize with P140.

Sorry to bore but does anyone have info of its approval status and take up?

"For your information... Sylviane Muller is a female and not a male ..."

My bad. Does my misogyny make a difference?

"The original patents are co owned by the CNRS and IMM..."

Have you got links to them? To add to my misogyny I am taking a guess that they have not as yet been granted or something else that is indicative of them having no value.

Please excuse my ignorance and fill me in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hce5NLzsMR8

I assume it is this,

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35720371/

"Conflict of interest statement

SM is named as co-inventor on CNRS-ImmuPharma patents relating to the P140 peptide. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest."

SM=Sylviane Muller,

Here's our man filing lots of patents

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?ST=singleline&locale=en_EP&submitted=true&DB=&query=+Sylviane+Muller

He seems to have got a bit excited about peptides, Lupus and the immune system back in 1981. I'll leave you lot to check his grant rate. More importantly check the time to grant. These things take shedloads of time.

Some one called it 6 weeks. You will be lucky to get the preliminary report within 6 months of filing.

In the Proactive Interview Sebastien who is making claims about how much of a slam dunk grant will be. Sebastien is a bit of a dreamer. What else might he dream about.

Oh yes. Clinical Trials where you select the candidates so the trails go faster. I'm struggling with this one at various levels the first of which is that it does not strike me as being good Science.

For example would you not need a first trial to prove that you can identify your set of super-responders before you got to your actual trial?

The presentation from Sebastian is next level incoherent.

Let's see if Bald Bloke makes any more sense...

It's not looking good. He is wibbling on about P140 and how this new patent is going to drive sales, presumably by avoiding the trials. Oh, sorry, having negotiating power to drive sales.

Is P140 a thing? Is it approved? Are there any sales?

Oh good grief. They have a "very broad" patent. [Application]. I can assure you that The Examiner is going to have a good time trashing that one.

The wonderful thing about the patent system is that you, as investors, will not see the text of the application itself or the back and forth between The Examiner and the applicants for Eighteen Months.

Mr Bald Guy blibbles about sitting at tables, apparently they are already negotiating stuff snore. More about how good it will be for P140 because picking P140 patients that lurve P140 means something.

Big Number/Market Play. Mention of Portfolio. Day dreamer Sebastien mentioned they had identified another Auto Immune thing.

Naif.

I mean what company director has to go into the details why forum trolls are wrong?

Oh God. If we were Microsoft. P140 blah P140 blah P140

It's a big fat nothing burger.

THE WINNER WOULD BE HAVING A GENERIC TEST THAT IDENTIFIES SUPER RECEPTORS FOR ALL AUTO IMMUNE DRUGS.

I call rubbish.

Too late really but bashing out all of the 42 before Author42 has proven its worth strikes me as being a bit silly. I may have alluded to this before.

Perhaps they should back off of announcing first dibs on the best thing since dibs and dropping the price through boredom and show that the dibs on the thing your were first given first dibs on are worth having.

"They're just chatbots. The Capai/R42 offerings will be much more progressive and business transforming."

https://www.linkedin.com/video/live/urn:li:ugcPost:7364673704951279619

Oooh Look. Glued Together ChatBots!

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/r42_ai-artificialintelligence-longevity-activity-7362555766530084864-bKJo

"A project to predict the market so you don't lose money."

So. Not a get rich scheme?

The ChatBot in the LinkedIN video said people should set a Stop Loss.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtVJ4JDM7eM

Oh

Regarding the recent conversations about publicizing the product...

https://futr.ai/

Does it not strike you that Mr Nag missed the bus on this one?

There is a good chance that if you visit your local Constabulary website you will now see a futr.ai bot in the bottom left.

https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/03/uk-ai-action-plan-for-justice-a-magic-infallible-ai-precrime-detector/

According to their Website soon to be available on the NHS and presumably many public, government, websites.

It looks like your future is futr.ai

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10673540

who are going to snaffle some nice contracts and they did not bother listing on AIM.

So why did Mr NAg miss this opportunity. I guess it has nothing to do with him not being mates with the bloke who is now bigging it up for AI in .GOV

Perhaps it is because he could not get his students to actually get their heads around how to make a proposal to GOV.UK or even his own head?

https://www.applytosupply.digitalmarketplace.service.gov.uk/g-cloud/services/502775811940508

Much easier to float a soon not to be graduate daydream about $Trillion market prospects with huge growth potential to daydreaming fools on investment forums than grub about with that sort of low return rubbish.

Go on. You've been had.

Https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?q=reddit+deal+with+AI&cat=web&language=english

LSE next. They hope.

Do people need to make up conspiracy theories about other posters or conspiracy theories about the markets and how they are regulated.

It's as simple as this. CPAI is another tool in Mr Nag's sandbox for his students to play with. His students glue together other people's tools to come up with projects that will not see the light of day to get credits towards their final degrees.

There are big questions hanging over the viability of those third party tools.

Again the problem here is that CPAI is not some made up entity. It's taking shareholder money.

Tell me this. Has Mr Nag recently been involved in taking a company from concept to meaningful product and income or IPO? If you can find something with real numbers then tell me what is is hit rate? Try not to include anything from when cell phones were breeze blocks.

Oh. "I do understand because of its complexity of AI and the amount of memory required."

You absolutely do not. Everything that Mr Nag and his students are developing will run on Azure, Amazon or Google Cloud instances. Likely Azure given they are dependent on ChatGPT.

https://www.author42.com/pricing

Do you see they quote Tokens Per Month and suggest the approximate number of words. Those are queries to the LLMs they are using. They are acting as resellers of other people's LLMs. They have to suck hosting and query costs and then turn a profit on top of that.

The big pain here is going to be that the likes of Altman are burning cash both developing their slop and discounting the use of it to jump start a market that is failing to materialize.

When the Angel Cash runs out, there is already a squeeze, they are going to have to put up their query prices, something that is already in the pipeline, and the CPAI business model, I'm not sure they have one, will get crippled.

I don't think I have seen a company let people from outside of the organization see what in effect was the full internal design reviews for the products they are working on. At least not something that has not been heavily edited.

So. We've had the presentations. It's a set of teams of fellows, students, working for free across a range of possible applications for AI. They gain exposure to AI and some of the tools and there is some focus on commercialization of their ideas.

There was one particular project where mention was made of the possibility of such commercialization but the lead, tutor, quickly stepped in to say that they were not ready. The Author42 team appeared to be up for it.

What does the whole set up represent though?

These are groups of students playing at being companies living in academic sandboxes. To add some realism to the simulation the end game is to sell the ideas on to a company that is going to exploit the ideas. That would be CPAI.

The problem is that CPAI is not some made up entity which they can play about with. It is taking real money off of real people. Neither is it independent in the sense that it will be making decisions for its shareholders.

That decision making is in effect controlled and directed by Mr Nag as part of the sandbox his students are playing in. Other than Mr Nag these are not people with track records of developing ideas and bringing them to market and I doubt that Mr Nag as the Mentor can be a truly rational actor.

This is not some sort of video game where you can blow up your investors and hit start again.

You see Mr Oz. The difference between me and you is that I can compose a narrative with supporting information whereas you and others have to resort to the tired old 'has an agenda' meme and toilet humour.

"May I humbly reccomend author42 as a medium to improve your composition skills in this regard."

Thanks Abby. However I would rather read from the source provided for FREE by The Register than pay £20 to have it mangled by a ChatGPT wrapper provided by R42.

In news elsewhere LLMs tend to get a bit defensive when they are faced with information that predicts their demise.

Oh. I feel absolutely no compunction to gain your respect given you appear to have no value. However it is nice to know that I have gained your attention.

Perhaps you can green box me and go back to talking about the SP breaking 0.5p or messaging from the rune readers.

Oh. Given I actually read my dog food here is a quote from,

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/18/generative_ai_zero_return_95_percent/

As an unidentified CIO put it in an interview with the authors,

"We've seen dozens of demos this year. Maybe one or two are genuinely useful. The rest are wrappers or science projects."

Does that sound a bit R42?

Of course 'Science Projects' as per the teams of students in The Presentations. More importantly 'Wrappers' which is what these students are doing. Taking third party tools and providing interfaces, wrappers, to link them together in a manner that might streamline the user experience.

As per the CIO there may be keepers but the rest is just R42.

For those who will continue to hope that R42 might come up with a gem. The statement from the CIO specifically excluded them. They add nothing to the concrete mixer.

As we all know Chartists are flob. Commonly linked to by last gaspers desperately clutching for straws to reassure themselves that their investment decision was wise or to catch out the unwary. Generally epitomized by the likes of Zak Mir who always forgets about the last time he predicted a leg up to 4 times the present share price in a month, or maybe three, only to see the SP flop back down below the placing price a week later giving the same prediction a few weeks later.

The Register is different. It provides in depth and well respected commentary and opinions on the IT landscape including today's missive,

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/25/overinflated_ai_balloon/

"The air is hissing out of the overinflated AI balloon."

Which references MIT's NANDA (Networked Agents and Decentralized AI) report. That would be the MIT that R42 associates themselves with.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/18/generative_ai_zero_return_95_percent/

I will not try to do a TL:DR for those who will cry Shorter, Trying to get in lower or sharing a bed, wi-fi, toilet with [insert your favourite green box] here. I'll leave it up to the more intelligent to read the content of the articles themselves and wonder whether R42, a company that gets students to glue together selections of the fail to make a surface level shiny, has any legs.

Oh. I did previously mention AI enhanced browser for the less technically inclined amongst you. It turns out they are a thing...

https://guard.io/labs/scamlexity-we-put-agentic-ai-browsers-to-the-test-they-clicked-they-paid-they-failed

The article makes reference to Lovable, a tool used by R42 for the good stuff. It also appears to be capable of being used for bad stuff. I guess that is tech for you but Who Guards the Guards?

One last one... The link I gave last night,

https://malwaretech.com/2025/08/every-reason-why-i-hate-ai.html?a=1

Makes a reference to RAG. This was mentioned in The Presentation in the context of fine tuning LLMs in a question by Mr Nag. Apparently it is a means of updated stale models, trained with weeks or months old data, with more current information. The author makes reference to it in respect of a stock trading app they were playing with. Shock Horror. Others are playing with the same stuff R42are playing with.

The author gives RAG a bad rep warning for permissionless scraping of data generated by others without credit of payment. This is after all the hole premise upon which AI is built. Data theft and, as mentioned before, going about crippling the performance of The Web for the rest of us by sending out frenzy bots to slurp the everything.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/21/ai_crawler_traffic/