The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Well, Mr Hoopyhoop deramper Sir.
It would seem that your attempted deramp is a complete lie and an attempt to mislead as I am told that a number of posters on the Telegram group have not only received emails from the company and its advisors but also very encouraging one`s at that. Not on the group myself but I was sent a copy of one that I posted here before it was removed but I am told that a few posters have received emails from the company and they are all very positive.
Mr BlackPoplar.
I think that you will find that it`s not a case of certain cheerleaders being silent, more a case of them being silenced with their posts constantly being removed from this board. You may want to ask yourself why it is that those who go on about having a balanced view go to such lengths to have my posts removed.
In my discussions with the company, I find them to be positive and upbeat about prospects and my posts reflect that.
The likes of Vander may have certain knowledge but he is clearly here to deramp and everything he says has AGENDA written all over it.
Let's see how long this post lasts before it is removed.
The sole purpose of a control test in any experiment is to validate the testing procedure. Without a positive control, the test is not validated and has therefore been compromised in some way. All other in-vivo work using Nuvec has proven to be highly successful with the "fantastic" results from the first pilot confirmed by the more extensive second pilot.
This share has fallen because of a trader reaction to the Evotec results. Strip the Evotec results out and the rest of that RNS reads as highly positive.
For the Evotec results to be valid then the control test needed to have been positive. The fact that the control also failed means that all of those tests were invalid, a point made by N4 itself in the RNS.
Further, the Evotec results were contrary to all other in-vivo testing and the data set which proved highly positive.
It is this data set that has led to advanced talks with a third partner and talks with other partners continuing.
As for a setback in revenue timescales, I would consider that the fact that others including a top world pharma has been testing Nuvec with their products for the last six months means that the chance of revenues has actually increased as six months is a long time for testing. If Nuvec did not work then it would have been rejected long before now. The fact that they are still testing means that partner interest remains, meaning progress has been made. You have to assume that if Nuvec is working well with partner products then collaboration talks would also have advanced.
Leister, yes let`s indeed say it how it is and not try and confuse people from quoting old news in relation to the current Evotec results. The tests to which your quote refers is old news dating back to the summer of 2020. Agglomeration was identified as being the issue and this has since been rectified with a now fully mono dispersed solution which has since proved highly successful in all in-vitro and in-vivo tests with the exception of the Evotec results which you agree were compromised and therefore invalid. Quoting from old (now resolved) issues and trying to reference them with the Evotec results is not helpful.
As for needing help, they are working with, two/soon to be three, companies that are carrying out in-vivo testing themselves using their own plasmids at no cost to N4, one of which being a multi-national company with very deep pockets. Again with the oral testing going on in Australia, this is being paid for by a government grant at no cost to N4.
Perhaps the question you should be asking is why a multinational company together with a host of others together with the Australian government are prepaid to spend time and money researching and testing Nuvec at no cost to N4 if they did not see potential and worth investing in.
As for a loss of corporate credibility, N4 has signed 2 MTA`s since the agglomeration issue was resolved, is in advanced talks with a third, and continues talks with a number of other parties. As far as credibility is concerned, N4 is getting Pharma`s attention.
Let's be clear about one thing. Technically the Evotec results were compromised and as such the results were not valid and therefore it is not a case of Nuvec failing, especially as all other in-vivo testings of Nuvec has shown excellent results. Had the control test proved positive, which it is meant to, then you could say the test was a failure but the positive control also failed, meaning as I said that these tests were invalid. Not sure if Evotec are duty-bound to repeat these tests given that the previous tests were compromised by Evotec but clearly N4 have chosen to advance their covid work through the plasmid developers via ongoing and further MTA`s
Part 2.
The problem with traders is they act as one with no thought about anything other than protecting their capital so a few sellers became a stampede in much the same way as someone firing a gun in a herd of cattle or someone shouting "fire" in a crowded nightclub. The effect of countless traders selling out to protect capital has produced what I believe to be a grossly oversold situation that is not warranted by news that was, with the exception of the suspect Evotec results , excellent news.
So are the traders to blame? yes of course they are because it was their selling that caused the damage but that does not mean that Nigel gets off lightly either. The RNS in my opinion was badly written and not with the trader element of shareholders in mind. My 12 year old daughter could have written a better RNS. This is not the first time that one of Nigels RNS`s has been misunderstood and caused a sell off. If there is anything in an RNS that could be misunderstood or deemed negative then it needs to be explained and a course of action given to address the situation. None was given and that has cause a lot of anger and mistrust which although that may be warrented by Nigels RNS writing skills, it does not warrent a 50% fall in the shares when effectively the RNS contained much news that was excellent like the third MTA and Nanomeric and storage results.
At the end of the day a global pharma has been testing Nuvec to used on its products for some time now. Althogh that does not mean a deal is certain, it is a good indication of progress as Nuvec would have been rejected at an early stage if it did not show promise.
In my opinion N4 shares are grossly oversold from an investment point of view, a traders point of view would probably differ, but there was nothing in the RNS that should have produced a fall to this extent.
If the RNS had been worded better and with explanations and detail then the result may have been a lot different.
So, what have we learned from N4 this week? The Nanomeric study proved that Nuvec can successfully aid in the fight against cancer by shrinking tumors. Such news would normally have sent N4`s shares up by multiples if taken in isolation. News also that RNA/DNA can be stored on Nuvec for at least 6 months and still work should have again sent the shares higher. So why have the shares taken a pounding? The reason being the Evotec results which did not produce the EXPECTED results. So what are we to make of this and does it justify the beating the shares have taken. Had the control test proven positive while others failed then you could say that Nuvec had failed but the control test also failed which means that the tests were compromised in some way. N4 themselves question the validity of the results and they are right to do so because the results were not validated by a positive control test which at the very least should have happened, nor were the tests in line with the previous in-vivo pilot study which produced "fantastic" results. These results were also at odds not only with the data set produced over a number of years showing highly promising results but were also at odds with all the research and development done by Nanomerics which again has produced highly successful results.
So as things stand I would think that for whatever reason the Evotec results are questionable.
So why have the shares taken a tumble? As I said before, there were plenty of investors who thought, pre-open, on the day of the announcement that the shares would go up on the day because of the excellent Nanomeric and storage news. So what of the market, how did it view the news? Certainly not badly because the shares opened flat and stayed that way a little while. Had the market judged the news as being bad then the shares would have opened way down at the start. So what caused the fall? Certainly not investors selling out because the volumes have not been exceptionally high to indicate a change of investor sentiment. So why the fall? You could have a room full of traders who had sold out on the news and yet they would all blame the company or anyone else when it is people selling that sent the share price lower. What you have to remember is that traders are not the same as real investors who invest in a company for more than just a few minutes or hours. Traders would say that trading is not harmful and is part of the normal market system but the problem with traders are they are not interested in anything else when a share goes down other than protecting their capital . Protecting capital is their number 1 objective on a red day.
So the market did not see the RNS as bad but a few traders who saw the news as not giving a boost to the share decided to sell which then put the share that had been flat into the red.
So was today`s RNS bad news or was it yet another case of investors misunderstanding its content and racing for the door. The RNS itself contained a number of exciting and highly positive items but the market being what it is means you could have 99 positives and yet the focus would be on the one perceived negative. I say perceived negative because I believe that the RNS has been misread in so far as the covid vaccine development is concerned.
Indeed such was the good news, many investors thought that the share would rise today prior to the open but traders being what they are, forced it down.
So let's forget about all the positives as the market has done and look at the perceived negative. Clearly, investors have misunderstood the section on the covid vaccine development. I hear investors ask has the covid work been scrapped. The answer to that is most certainly not. N4 has always stated that Nuvec would need to be optimized for individual plasmids and that has not changed. The only change is a change of strategy whereby N4 will allow the optimization work to be completed by the MTA partners instead of doing it itself. The logic to that being that nobody knows the individual plasmids better than the MTA partners themselves and are therefore best placed to do the optimization work. N4 themselves question the validity of the Evotec results given that they are contrary to all the extensive data set and it is this data set that has attracted a probable third MTA partner with N4 expecting others to follow.
Make no doubt about it the oncology results are excellent news along with others and N4 are still very much in the covid vaccine space through its MTA partners.
Interesting that in his Tory party conference speech today the PM picked out gene editing as being one of the major growth areas for the UK, saying that the UK would be the world leader in gene editing research and development. Such a move would be highly beneficial for Nuvec which is specifically designed for use in gene editing and a host of other applications.
We already know from research that Nuvec stays in the upper gut and transfects human cells, successfully delivering its payload and producing the proteins needed to fight disease. Although the Australian study may be for three years the thing of most importance is the proof of concept and as this will be the first experiment then the timeframes for this will be substantially shorter. Once Nuvec is proven to transfect the intestinal wall and deliver its payload then the sheer scale of Nuvecs potential will be seen.
In the meantime there is a whole host of what could be game changing news that could easily see N4 at multiples of todays price.
Sadly, the latest research shows that protection from Covid-19 using the present vaccines reduces after only six months.
This country cannot even vaccinate its people in a year let alone every six months so there has to be a better solution.
Nuvec overcomes the logistical problems you have with injections but the long term answer in the absence of better vaccines is oral. Research into oral delivery may be in its early stages but the 3 year investment by the Australian government into N4`s oral delivery system shows the interest in Nuvec as an oral delivery system. If proven up then you don`t need me to tell you that it would be huge for N4.
"how much does it cost for large scale production of Nuvec"
The company are on record as saying that Nuvec is cheap to produce.
The real question is how much does it cost to fund an extensive research program into the oral administration of Nuvec because that is the sum the Australian government are willing to support the development of Nuvec. This together with the in-vivo testing being funded by their MTA partners means that overall a lot of the costs associated with Nuvec`s development are being paid for by interested partners.
In effect the optimization and "fantastic" in-vivo results will come to be seen as a turning point for Nuvec and N4. Post the fantastic results seen from the optimized version, we now have a technology that is not only being taken seriously but has also now got the interest of global pharma companies and governments alike.
A three year fully funded research programe by the Australian government shows the level of interest now being shown in Nuvec and I would expect to see further funding in the form of grants come from the British government who are spending huge amounts on vaccines and vaccine delivery.
All in all, today`s RNS delivers on Nigels promise of delivering good solid news on progress while interest in Nuvec is shown to be increasing all around the world.
Crazy share price here, even share-talk agrees with the company broker that N4`s share price should be ten times higher to bring it in line with its peers. The fact is the company are in discussions with a top-class world pharma over the use of Nuvec in a collaboration deal and people are getting jittery over the lack of recent news to maintain investor interest.
Well, we waited a while for the last news and that produced a fantastic result and I`ve no doubt that the next news will be equally impressive.
Accumulation has been going on for a few days now. Buyers looking to take out the frustrated sellers rather than buy aggressively and force the price up. News on the way.
That is the fundamental point about Nuvec`s patent, the fact that nobody can copy the design of the Nuvec particle or even something similar. The patent means that only Nuvec has the spikes which are proven to protect the DNA/RNA into the cell. There are plenty of pharma`s using nanoparticles but they do not have the spikes like Nuvec and as such are not suited for DNA/RNA delivery.
This is not about comparisons using a C19 DNA vaccine, its about Nuvec as a delivery system. The inovio plasmid would have used a Lipid delivery which we know as being substantially inferior to Nuvec. Things have also moved on substantially from 2020 as we have seen from the new optimized version of Nuvec giving "fantastic" in-vivo results as opposed to the old version.
as such these tests are not really comparable to those of inovio.
However it is good that you highlight the problems of using electroporation because that is something not used by N4 as Nuvec is successful in entering the cell and delivery its payload without any assistance from the like of electroporation.