Member Info for Boonco

Merck, Pfizer, MJ fox foundation etc all happy to work with 4D with Duncan at the helm. If it’s good enough for them it’s good enough for me.

It’s surprising how satisfying it is when the green filtered message pops up

"Crypto isn’t an investment what is it then? Haha ffs . As if your even able To work a smart phone. Well done, my grandad csnt even work the sky remote yet."

No, it's not an investment. You can't invest in something that has no inherent value, it's not that difficult to understand. There's a difference between being invested in something and speculating on something. Putting money in crypto is the latter.

It'll bounce back in time, it's oversold.

What’s a catch 22 in reverse and what are you referring to when you say pre price.

Trinity’s price is what they think the business is worth now as it stands with the things that are known about.

Trinity disagree with you yuyus, in their latest broker note they forecasted angle at 248p and that price doesn't include fda approval.

Anyone who writes "lol" once let alone repeatedly automatically goes on the daft list.

No crypto isn't the future of finance and no you can't invest in something that has no inherent value. What is interesting and perhaps worthy of consideration is speculating on the blockchain technology for the potential it holds for fields away from finance.

Hi miavoce,

If you look at an intraday chart for 6th October you'll note it experienced the majority of the days decline before the announcement about polarean was released. When people were commenting about polarean on the day I did say that risk assets across the board were already down anyway - angle included.

open - 130p
12pm - 125p
1pm - 123-124p
1.30pm - 126-127p
2pm - 122p
2.03pm - polarean rns
Close - 118p

https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/afc/ownership

"As I’ve mentioned before this has been rocked by the POLX FDA rejection and infuriatingly this has barely recovered whilst POLX, although still way down from its pre rejection high has recovered more from its low. Seems to have spooked investors a bit. Which is illogical because there is no comparison whatsoever between the two."

The fact it dropped on the same day isn't evidence of a link to the polx situation. For one thing, that day the polx news came out was a bad day for the markets and risk assets in general. Angle had recently risen more than 20% in a short space of time so it's just as plausible that it was the short termers and risk averse taking profit off the table less they get a nosebleed.

I thought I'd previously filtered you.

Oh well, now I have :)

History is littered with examples of single use devices that have been reprocessed by hospitals/contract third party organisations and then reused. However, in the eyes of the FDA and any hospital/third party org doing this is considered an original equipment manufacturer and held to the same regulations as an OEM.

At the end of the day there is only so much a company can do to ensure items that are single use are used in such manner. A company will train customers how to use their device and any single use item will be labelled such in its IFU. Beyond that it relies on the compliance of the user. So with the parsortix trays for example, once the tray has been ejected from the machine it's down to the user to follow the correct waste disposal guidelines.

Items such as the parsortix trays are not something that anyone in good conscience would consider using more than once. It's no different to an item like a syringe, there's nothing actually physically stopping a clinician from using a syringe more than once but they simply wouldn't unless they have bad motives intend to cause harm.

Haggis, it was the first thing I thought when I read the board. The line of work he’s in lends itself well to being a consultant. I did similar myself a few years ago.

If you hadn't noticed risk assets are quite heavily down across the board

I agree that clinical significance means nothing without statistical significance, I'm well aware that you can’t have the former without the latter. I also agree that that when considering this study’s primary endpoint which involved both bowel habit and abdominal pain, only the combined group was statistically significant.

I didn’t play liberal with my use of terms though. If I’m guilty of anything it’s that I didn’t specify that I was specifically referring to the additional analyses that they released earlier this year in May where they looked at bowel habits and abdominal pain independently. Blautix resulted in a statistically significant improvement in bowel habits, both for each group individually and combined. Furthermore, it had a positive effect on abdominal pain for both groups individually.

As noted in the same presentation…

FDA, Irritable Bowel Syndrome - Clinical Evaluation of Products for Treatment (2012). “A drug can be specifically developed to treat only one of the major signs or symptoms of IBS [abdominal pain or bowel habit], which should be identified as the primary endpoint in the clinical trial. The other key efficacy endpoints should be assessed in the clinical trial as secondary endpoints. Demonstration of significant and clinically meaningful changes in the targeted single endpoint could serve as a basis for approval, as long as the other important symptoms or signs have not worsened on treatment.”

In other words, for the phase 3 study they can target bowel habit only as the primary end point and if they see the same results as the additional phase 2 analyses for bowel habits and abdominal pain individually showed, that will meet the criteria.

I'm pretty confident you know the answer mumbo just as you know that considering p value in isolation isn't good practice.

Clinically significant, clinically important, clinically meaningful - choose your term it's all the same.

"As an example I read their Bleautix readout from last year, and did the statistics, moving around one or two patients here and there can make a big difference from being "statistically significant" to not. The statistical significance is very tenuous."

and yet the question of clinical significance doesn't seem tenuous, go figure huh.

Current Zeus valuation is 188p - see the note they released earlier this month.

"Our valuation edges up from 184p to 188p per share due to passage of time – based on UK construction and EV charging and five key ABB markets – despite forecasting higher losses, short-term. Improved cell economics (from the S-series) should move this higher. We have not yet quantified the valuation impact of the significant opportunities in the Maritime and Data Centre markets."

AB brought ABB on board and although not impossible I think it's pretty inconceivable that a decent chunk of business won't come AFC's way through them.

If ABB are happy to work with AB then that's good enough for me.

Misunderstandings happen, it's not a big deal