Member Info for DugWalker

Good stuff Nick. Please keep us informed. I'd like to see the back of him. Seems to spend more energy hand waving at camera than he does developing sensible commercialisation strategies. He clearly thinks it makes him look authoritative. All show little substance.

Yep NU. That would be very predictable but at least it would confirm their attitude towards shareholders.

Will let folks know what, if anything, I get by way of response.

Part 2

.....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 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.

Have just sent the following and will inform on the response should I get one. (Part 1, 2nd part to follow);

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?

We also employ, no doubt at significant cost, a CSO and a CDO. Engaging with funding organisations should be second nature for those guys! In fact I can't believe our CSO was unaware of Transform so someone (Burrows?) must have decided not to engage. A completely shocking decision.

@Tav

I suspect he chose to chase the US market because the existing LDT regulations open the door to him selling into the private medical market. Perhaps he saw this as a way to gain a toe hold whilst avoiding the cost and time imitations of large scale trials. I can understand that to some extent.

All his talk on Wednesday about the importance of getting PSE incorporated into various US guidance and regulatory documents might indicate that we have had pushback from medics across the pond as he is asking them to make life changing decisions based on very small sample sizes. That may explain OBD's use of terms like 'robust discussions', 'candid feedback' that has been used to describe outcomes of the US workshops.

What I find astonishing is the lack of engagement on Transform. It is a massive trial with others picking up.the costs of recruiting participants and collecting blood samples. It should be manna from heaven to OBD. Proper validation at scale and the bonus of having internal overheads at least partially covered by grant funding!

I would definitely say that if we are not involved Burrows has been negligent and should go.

You have just reiterated that you won't be investing ahead of the probable placement. You have nothing to complain about in my response.

You complain that others are being harsh yet the reality is your decision not to top up is a reflection of your own view of the current underperformance of the company. You don't want to be further diluted but you don't mind if others are.

I think it's harsh that you encourage others to invest/stay invested when you state that you will not be investing ahead of the imminent fund raise.

This has just gone to NIHR (responsible for Transform Prostate trial).

"In a webinar for shareholders earlier this week, Jon Burrows the CEO of Oxford Biodynamics informed that the company has recently written to NIHR/Prostate Cancer UK about the forthcoming national screening trial.

I am aware that the proposal deadline was quite some time ago and that contract negotiations are due imminently. I do however know that you have designed the trial to be future proofed as much as possible. Can you confirm that you are actively considering how this potentially world leading test can be incorporated into the trial at the earliest opportunity?

Thank You,"

...in fact the notebook seemed to be little more than a crib sheet that he proceeded to read from as if to seem informed about what is the biggest national screening trial in decades.

Earlier this year I posted links to the call for proposals for Transform, and to the press releases announcing the project released by Prostate Cancer UK. Both make it clear that they wish to future proof the trial by encouraging collaboration and partnerships so that innovations like PSE, that come after the deadline for proposals can be included. Your reply shows that Prostate Cancer UK would welcome the data that Transform would generate about PSE. We should find we are pushing on an open door yet we are told we have had to employ and external consultant to lobby government to ensure PSE is included in the trial.

Once again we are faced with conflicting information, lack of transparency and downright obfuscation.

On a related manner our new VP for CiRT Ryan Mathis left his last full time job with Polarity TE in August last year (Burrows has a recent association with Polarity). We were told he was recruited in December but there has been no formal announcement via RNS and Dr Mathis had not updated his linkedin profile to reflect new employment status. I wonder if he has actually started working on the urgent need to improve CiRT marketing and sales. Perhaps he's gone skiing ahead of a new demanding role?

Thanks for sharing agakhan. The reply you got from Prostate Cancer UK is consistent with those I have seen from other shareholders.

It is concerning that our CEO continues to tell us the PSE test is 'fully validated' when it quite clearly is not. This is precisely why I wrote to the company months ago asking if they would be seeking participation in the Transform trial which is a randomised control trial to be conducted at scale. It would provide the company with the data required to satisfy both regulatory authorities (and purchasing managers!) that PSE lives up to the claims. The reply I got was generic and hid behind the screen of RNS regulations (apparently answering my question would divulge 'price sensitive information').

In this week's webinar, I therefore found our CEO's new found willingness to discuss Transform wholly unconvincing. Waving his notebook at camera was I guess designed to convey the message that he had a dosier of information reflecting our corporate interest

Frustrated that Burrows fails to recognise that the world beyond his inner circle does NOT agree with his repeated assertion that PSE is fully validated. One of the groups that disagrees with him is Prostate Cancer U.K. They have publicly stated that the data from the prostogram trial is insufficient and that further evidence is needed from randomised control trials conducted at scale. They identify shortcomings of the prostogram trial such as lack of ethnic diversity and low participation numbers. This is why the Transform Prostate trial is an absolute 'must do' for OBD. Sadly I thought Burrows was very unconvincing with his discussion of the Transform trial. He started by waving his 'notebook' at camera as if to suggest he is fully informed, but it appeared to me that he used it as a crib sheet that he seemed to be reading from.

The only guidance I can offer is to stop investing in AIM companies.

If only I could convince myself to do likewise....

@NU,

I think we are in agreement about some form of J.V. or partnership.

The board has brought us to a precarious position. It isn't unknown for companies with the clout to take control of IP only to suppress its exploitation if they believe they can use that to their benefit (e.g. promoting alternative solutions, disadvantaging competitors etc.). Time to cross fingers and hope our board begin to show more commercial nous than they have to date.

Hi NU,

I agree that licencing to big pharma could be a way forward, but it is not necessarily a panacea. I have some personal experience of licencing albeit in other branches of industry. It is frequently the case that those with a tried and tested route to market hold the whip hand in negotiations and extract a significant 'price' in return. If it is a matter of survival for OBD as an independent entity.dont be surprise to see them.lose control.of elementsbof their IP rights. Patent maintenance costs are very significant nowadays. I would not be surprised if a potential partner offered to pay some of those patent fees in return for a major chunk.of any incomes derived.

Re management stating that a placement won't be at a discount, they also said CiRT sales were on an exponential growth trajectory back in June/July. As Dibs says it is hard to take anything they say at face value now.

In addition I am increasingly concerned as to.tbeir ability to commercialise our products. Burrows insistence that P2P via medics is the way to go is looking seriously flawed. The numbers don't lie, but claims that sales stalled because 1 guy was sick suggest there mIght be less honesty elsewhere in our processes. Bedides, I thought it was the doctors that would do the selling so why are the numbers of doctors engaged not growing with awareness?

A competent sales plan will recognise that there are multiple demands to meet. Pricing for bulk purchases. early adopter deals, after sales support , technical differentiation, logistics, delivery times even performance guarantees are factors customers will need addressing but how do you do that when your focus is very much on the end users?

Educating the end users (doctors) is just one facet of many. Front line doctors do need to be on board but they can't sell to their purchasing managers.

I had thought these other elements of the sales process would be understood and properly addressed but perhaps I was presumptious to do so.

As things stand I see the SP sliding continuously until their is positive news on revenues and that seems a long way off. If we don't get taken over at a a hefty discount, I see a significant erosion of our asset value as we hold a car boot sale of intellectual.property in order to survive. All hugely disappointing.

The big sells will hopefully dry up in time, however, I had been expecting an RNS announcing the UK lab this month. Yesterday he said it will not be ready until end March. Partnerships require negotiation and legal input both of which take time. I'm struggling to see positive news ahead of Q2 so see this sliding back into the teens.

'Watching the show' is quite appropriate even if I get immediate visions of kermit and miss piggy. What a farce. Burrows has to go unless he manages a minor miracle in quick time.

@44x.

The ironic thing is I don't believe short term expectations were that high!. I'd have been delighted with monthly CiRT sales of around 200. Sadly our CEO's reliance on P2P as his preferred route to market has been disastrous. His arrogant 'putting to bed' of the hope that 770 sales might have been achieved in the post reporting period suggests he actually thinks that was an unreasonable goal.

It's going to take much more than a 10 million placing to see us through to profitability based on current performance. I wouldn't be surprised if we get bought out at a heavy discount that won't compensate shareholders for our losses. The begging bowl is not a good look.

Stockholm 3 has been known for some time. Its a relatively.modest improvement on PSA , but should not be any threat to PSE if PSE replicates its claimed performance at scale.