Member Info for FlyingHigher

IntrusiveThought - Thanks for that :D
LOAM sold more than I expected there - over 2m sold.
I also think they might be going all the way out.

Blitzed - You've gone ad-hominem on me without even knowing me and your assessment of me and my views is extremely childish. I've LOST if that appeases your childish desire for a conclusion to your debate. Well done.
"GB News is a self-confessed right-wing hate vehicle" - That's your opinion and reflects only your unwillingness to look beyond the perspective you've shaped for yourself. You talk about haters and anti-vaxxers like somebody straight out of a modern university campus. Just keep cancelling those views you don't want to acknowledge. It will change the world!
In fact, I don't need a conspiracy. I just navigate the world with my eyes open.
The 740,000 mis or untreated cancers may not have equated to that number of deaths exactly, but it was one of a number of factors contributing to higher death rates incorrectly attributed to covid. That's the crux of the point here. Alcohol deaths is another factor you can point to in this discussion.
I will spell this out for Blitzed: The risk nature of covid in resulting in fatalities of people slightly exceeding life expectancy age makes it unexceptional, that's undeniable. We have no clear way of telling whether a population dying of average life expectancy are dying primary from natural causes.
If covid was an exceptional risk you would see a notable difference between covid fatality age and average life expectancy. This did not happen.
Between 10-40 million people are recorded as dying from Sepsis every year. These are largely secondary deaths.
The contention with covid is if as indicated by the ONS report, the deaths are comprised largely of life expectancy age deaths, then we really don't know how many of those were secondary and how much of a pandemic there is/was. Again, this is just objective critique.
I'm absolutely not cherry picking anything.
It scares me that the so-called pandemic may not have been exceptional and yet created a knock-on effect on everything else that was absolutely catastrophic, including the ignored side-effects of the poorly tested vaccination program.
One thing I find of militant leftists is they refuse to engage objectively and civilly in debate and resort to emotive childish ad-hominem from a place of presumed consensus.
I never assume ill intent because I disagree with somebody.
Please assume that my regard for others comes from a good place and that my concerns regarding the irrational response to covid are related to this regard for others.

Exactly! Understand that this company is an elephant at the top of a tree.

Gigawitt- what do you mean LOAM seem to have understood? Understood that they need to get out as quick as possible. I'm expecting an RNS today or tomorrow reporting 2m+ more shares offloaded.
Are you suggesting we should follow their lead?
I am in a roundabout way without wanting to give advice.

I remember a company called SULA iron & gold, which supposedly had a transformational iron ore deposit. The shares went from 1p to 6p very quickly. The board gave themselves options at 10p, the forums went made over it.
A short while later the company tanked and eventually relaunched itself under a different legal entity.
I use this example to illustrate that options can be used purely as a PR stunt.

Blitzed - your comment about GB News says a lot about your naivety - That you would write off any view on a false perception you have of the platform they appear on. Stick to the arguments.
The fact you've used a fact checked statement again shows your naivety. The fact checker across a multitude of topics has been supporting mainstream narrative. Who's doing the so-called fact-checking? In this case, there is an extensive medical journal with industry scrutiny and if we're going to talk about flawed studies, let's talk about Pfizers trials they admitted had never had feedback collated from! That's a dangerously flawed study wouldn't you say? Why didn't fact checker pick that up? It may explain some of the side-effects and unexplained deaths we're now seeing alongside the rollout.
The point I'm making here, which you missed, is the risks were not properly quantified, so how you or anybody else can assert with any degree of confidence that vaccines benefits outweighed risks is beyond me. For this statement you also ignore the risk profile of Covid, which in the UK killed people older than life expectancy on average, so if somebody is 20 years old with no autoimmune or respiratory conditions, they have extremely low risk from covid and would be wise not to take the vaccine because the risk of clotting, Myocarditis/cardiovascular or other conditions is higher. That's a rational view to take.
So when you say vaccines saved lives, well they reduced the risk for the elderly so yes, but can you tell me how many lives they took? No would be my guess there.
You didn't save lives either, so you can take your tinpot dangerous propaganda elsewhere.
I don't mean that last bit, I'm just replying in the childish tone that you addressed me in.

Can spectators still participate?

I'm an interested spectator at this point

Don't take my word for it. Take it from Dr Aseem Malhotra who was a vocal advocate of the first MRNA jab. The vaccine is definitely killing people and he's published a medical journal to show this.

The BBC, Sky, Channel 4, ITV - it's all BS.
Don't believe what they say.
Look at covid - killed people older than life expectancy according to the ONS.
The pfizer vaccine was never proven to have any impact on viral transmissibility.
The latest booster was only tested on rats before release.
Yet previous vaccines resulted in an exceptional uptick in Myocarditis and cardiovascular deaths.
The BBC themselves acknowledge the alarming rate of unexplained deaths, yet lockdowns and vaccines are good according to them.
Over 740,000 people in the UK died from misdiagnosed or untreated cancers due to the so-called pandemic.
Record levels of anxiety, panic, alcoholism, domestic violence.
Piece this all together and you realise that the risk treatment of the so-called pandemic has caused something absolutely monstrous and far worse than covid was ever capable of.
Yet people still listen to the media.
God help us all if people are that stupid.

Mike I mentioned it earlier! LOAM may be down to 42m shares, but that's still a lot to shift before the anticipated perilous update.
For this reason I'm expecting zero blue days until the announcement and suspect the share price will fall below 25p.

Loam declared a holding of 44,156,168 yesterday.
Today they've sold at least a million more looking at some of the transactions, maybe 2 million.
They've got 42m to go though even if that's right.

You're right coolnamesgone, they've had no money for R&D since the cash conserving strategy and that would have been for the better if they hadn't failed so miserably in the litigation lawsuit.
Now they'll have no space in display, no royalties and still very little cash. It's a shambles.

It's probably a sell

AquaeSulis01 - I've suggested $1bn for the court award numerous times and also said that with the added pressure of EU and Chinese trials that a post US settlement could be higher. I've also suggested that the court could award based on enhanced revenues as a percentage of $14bn+.
These were fact based conversations, based on information provided by Nanoco.
This information has since been brushed under the carpet and a new disappointing indication has been given. That's why my view has changed.
That's perfectly rational.
People won't convince me that my previous musings were irrational because they were based on information provided by Brian Tanner/Nanoco.
The spin on this forum is unbelievable.
There are a few others intelligent enough to see that the scenario has changed and they too are disappointed.
Others are burying their heads in the sand trying to convince themselves and others that all is above board, there's value here and any sum of money is 'transformational.'

Stockpedia has a price target of 2.7p for Nanoco!

Shorting is too risky for me

I have sold my holding because I believe the business to be fairly valued at £20m - £30m + settlement. I previously believed Nanoco would retain £500m historic damages + ongoing royalties based on enhanced revenues and wilful infringement. Edison did not include more recent sales of Nanoco tech or wilful infringement in their ultra Conservative estimates.
Given how this has changed with the poor business of the funder or Nanoco BoD, as Gigawitt et al refuse to acknowledge, I now anticipate a maximum of £50-£80m retained with no future royalties.
On an estimate of £50m retained and a generous valuation of £30m on the rest of the business, that gives us £80m or 24.8p per share.
It could be even worse than that

Large transactions going through.
Wait for the holdings RNS.
Will they get out in time for the 'shock' announcement of a terrible deal?

Loam look to be selling out still