Member Info for DugWalker

Wouldn't waste the train fare.

Whatever happened to the non-dilutive fundraise that was anticipated from the numerous 3rd parties queuing up to invest in unvalidated 'products' without a single sale?

They have no shame and will say anything that they think might keep the gravy train chugging along. I note too more expensive jollies to conferences are lined up and thank goodness for that as its hard to imagine what sales would be without their impact.

The shift from exponential sales growth to devoting 2024 to analysing sales and marketing strategy to understand why nobody is buying is utterly laughable.

As I have said, we should push for publication of the KPI's and performance metrics of this bloated and ineffective senior management team. It would not surprise if they do not have any and in that case the Chairman should come under pressure to resign.

Sales of CIRT struggling to get above 1 a day suggests there has been no value fthus from the recruitment of Mathis and Arrivo.

I note the use of 'US based' in the description of the gravy train passengers. This suggests to me they have done nothing or been unsuccessful in their attempts to be included in the Transform screening programme. The US base is their excuse for this shameful failure.

The question needs to be asked why they launched PSE ahead of schedule when they now say they need to review sales strategy and seek inclusion in guidance notes to achieve meaningful sales. Sheer ineptitude for which heads should roll. Sadly they won't.

Semantics to some extent, but I don't entirely agree with Tav when he says nothing has been done to market the products. Remember Burrows has overseen rapid growth of a Senior management team that now includes:

Burrows. CEO

Akoulitchev. CSO

Stockdale. CFO

Hunter. CDO (D for Data)

Guiel. COO

Heaton. Lab Director/Pathologist

Abdo. VP Clinical Diagnostics

Arrivo. SVP Business & Commercial Development

Blum. SVP Marketing.

Mathi V.P. Market Access and Business Development.

That's a CEO on >500k a year plus another 9 guys that are most likely all on 6 figure salaries in a small company of about 50 employees total. No wonder the burn rate is ridiculous.

Several of these have 'market or marketing' in their job titles yet the company is struggling to sell a handful of tests per day.

What are there KPI's and performance metrics? How are their roles differentiated and what the hell is the Chairman doing to ensure their roles are effective and justified?

@agakhan,

I'm not overly concerned by the emerging competition in the prostate testing area but only because OBD is supposed to have a conveyer belt of tests based on episwitch. I am very concerned by the inability to gain sales and by the gravy train ethos of the company.

@Kingalf

https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2019/11/21/urine-tests-detecting-cancer-in-pee/#:~:text=It's%20very%20helpful%20when%20patients,can%20also%20get%20into%20pee.

Exosomedx claim to have 'validated their test on a larger cohort than OBD and the results are published in peer reviewed medical journals.

Https://www.swurologic.com/images/pdfs/exosome.pdf

Looks like this urine test costs $795 and they have insurance codes available. Broadly comparable to PSE.

Hi Agakhan,

I think I did compare the tests and concluded that the published stats suggested PSE was superior in terms of performance. Nevertheless the performance/cost issue is increasingly valid as new competitors emerge.

https://www.exosomedx.com/sites/default/files/2021-02/PCP%20White%20Paper.pdf

I have literally just found this link so don't yet have cost info.

A placing is a certainty. The bluster about non dilutive funding from a sale of IP assets is nonsense. They do not have time to reach an agreement before the funds run out and the management team will not want to get their snouts out of the trough just yet.

It is hard to identify a senior manager in this company that doesn't have a second job elsewhere so remember that when they say they are 'focussed'. Remember too that, by a remarkable coincidence, many of them have shared past employers.

Gravy train much?

@Kingalf,

Personal opinion is it will take a placement to raise the required funds. If I remember correctly even Burrows spoke about 'very preliminary' discussions (or some such phrase) and you don't go from swopping business cards to agreeing a commercial package to avoid OBD running out of money in a matter of weeks. What rights would the 3rd party get in return for their ££'s? Would they accept instantly or look to negotiate? What about due diligence? Will they simply accept market projections from OBD or would they want to identify potential barriers to commercialisation and sales? What about routes to market, competitors, future growth prospects?

All basic and legitimate questions that don't get answered quickly. There would be a small army of accountants and lawyers involved. Put it down to more unrealistic bull from a guy on a cool £0.5 million a year.

Hi Tav.

I've given up hope of a meaningful response. They clearly don't like questions related to individual responsibilities and/or key performance indicators. For example, I'd have appreciated some clarity about the role of the 3rd party government lobbyist's role in ensuring we are involved in the National screening trial but it hasn't been forthcoming. Seems like a wholly unnecessary and ineffective use of the little cash we have left.

Sentiment gets killed when your CEO announces sales are growing exponentially only to admit they have declined just a few months later. Sentiment gets killed when the CFO let's it be known that a placing is probable unless the company can flog some of the family silver. Sentiment gets killed when the CEO suggests tests may need to be included in treatment guidance notes in order to gain market traction, whilst simultaneously demonstrating ignorance of the largest prostate screening trial in decades.

Either write to Burrows and complain about the effect his leadership is having on your investment, or cut your losses so you can stop whining about how an individual posting on a forum is materially influencing the share price. One of those options might suggest you have some sense, the other hints at paranoia even if it is rather comical.

They have already stated that they are hoping to find buyers for some or all of the colorectal cancer/canine cancer portfolio in order to keep the ship.afloat. I think this demonstrates managerial naivity. They are asking for 10's of millions for some or all of two business segments that do not yet exist and have zero revenues. Burrows should consider going on Dragons Den as I suspect the experience may prove educational.

The liklihood of a takeover is, in my opinion, miniscule relative to the liklihood of a dilutive placing coming our way soon.

A rehash of old news. Nothing to see here.

Tight share registers, great going up, not so.much going down.

@agakhan,

My questions were sent to investor relations immediately following the webinar. It's pretty clear that they have no intention to acknowledge or respond to them. I fear the management of OBD leaves much to be desired. Almost all of the senior managers, including our CEO, have 2nd jobs and many share past employment history with Burrows. There is no indication that competitive recruitment processes have been used prior to appointment of many/most of these highly paid, but underperforming managers. Worrying indications of potential cronyism?

My questions on this;

Have we directly approached NIHR/Prostate Cancer UK to request participation and if so what was their response?

We already employ several senior managers for whom research proposals and negotiations are 2nd nature. Why then has it been deemed necessary to employ a 3rd party advisor to lobby for participation? Is this reflective of low prioritisation of participation in Transform?

Since Dr Burrows states that it is imperative that we are involved who in the company is responsible for securing participation or are we wholly reliant upon a '3rd party advocate'?

4. Since we are in discussions with third party organisations concerning partnerships, are we entering these discussions with a clear vision of what type of demand would constitute a deal breaker? I am particularly concerned about potential implications for ownership or control of our IP.

Yours Sincerely,

Still awaIting an acknowledgement, let alone a response to my email below.

Dear Investor Relations Team,

The webinar and ensuing fall out with respect to the share price has been very disappointing. I have some questions and remarks in relation to this and would appreciate your response.

1. There appears to have been a lack of transparency in the company's dealings with shareholders. For example the mid-year webinar suggested that CiRT sales were growing exponentially, albeit from a low base. On Wednesday, we were told that the peak sales figure attained at that time was actually recognised to be a spike and that sales were expected to tail off through the summer. Why are such contrary messages to shareholders deemed appropriate when they serve only to confuse and damage trust?

2. The company issued an RNS on the appointment of Steve Arrivo, presumably as the information was considered to be price sensitive information. No such announcement was made in relation to Ryan Mathis and I note his linkedin profile does not yet indicate current employment by Oxford Biodynamics. We were informed in the webinar that he is to be responsible for improving the marketing and sales of CiRT. What exactly is his relationship with the company? Is he a full time employee, a consultant, or something else? If he is an employee why was precedent not followed with regards to an RNS on his appointment? Has he started working for OBD or is there a delay to him taking up his post?

3. I wrote to you earlier this year to enquire about the prospect of the company participating in the Transform Prostate (TP) screening trial. I received a generic response stating that this information was price sensitive and would only be released by RNS.

During the webinar we were told the company has employed a '3rd party government advocate' to lobby for inclusion in the trial. I don't understand why this is necessary as it is my understanding that the TP project has specifically been designed to future proof it against the emergence of new technologies like Episwitch PSE post the submission deadline. Prostate Cancer UK are fully aware of our technology and have stated publically that they would like to see PSE properly validated via a randomised control trial conducted at scale. We should be pushing on an open door!

Dr. Burrows says we have written to the Transform team and that we "must be involved". Please inform him that contrary to his belief that the trial 'won't be set up till 2024', the project has been designed, the call for proposals has expired and individual participants are being recruited. The only new information due to be announced in the coming months is the identity of organisations and partnerships involved and their associated budgets. We appear to be very late to the game.

It was quite shocking to see our CEO continuously having to refer to notes when discussing the largest ever trial for a national prostate screening programme.

My questio

@scoredagain.

I agree. For now. more than ever, it's a question of personal view of the risk reward balance. I've reduced my holding as I am convinced a placing is coming very soon. I also wonder if we could become a target for a takeover at this depressed share price but I don't think that's as much of a possibility until the hype is backed up with regulatory approvals following trials at scale.

I have a pot of cash waiting but won't be increasing my shareholding until future financing is secured.