Member Info for GlenFidrich

"Not gonna waste time
I can see his postings are pretty much all on SAR ...nuff said
Filtered"
Riddler's reply to what I thought was a legitimate concern regarding DMTR's website this morning, before 8am. What a prick. "Nuff said"! Lol! The arrogance of the man is unreal. My advice to anyone holding DMTR or PYC is don't express an opinion on these boards questioning the wisdom of investing in either stock, or else!! Today's shenanigans just serve to highlight the danger of being fooled by these idiots.

Oh dear, Potnak, you really are clutching at straws. Dr Millen was merely announcing PYC's BioTrinity conference attendance and presentation. "Physiomics plc (AIM: PYC), the oncology consultancy using mathematical models and its Virtual Tumour™ technology to support the development of cancer treatment regimens and personalised medicine solutions, is pleased to announce that it is participating in the BioTrinity 2020 conference which is being held digitally this week. In lieu of face to face meetings, the Company has made a pre-recorded presentation which is available to all conference attendees, the slides for which can also be found on our website here https://www.physiomics.co.uk/resources/. In addition, the Company will participate in a number of virtual 1-1 meetings with potential clients and collaborators." The RNS continues: 'Dr Jim Millen, CEO said: "In these difficult times, it's great to see that lifescience companies can find creative ways to continue to develop the relationships needed to fight COVID-19, cancer and other diseases where new treatments are desperately needed. We look forward to fully participating in the digital version of this popular conference."' What he was saying was that he was pleased that conferences of this nature were able to continue to happen, if only remotely, despite the Covid-19 pandemic. PYC are focused on "the development of cancer treatment regimens and personalised medicine solutions". No mention of any Covid products in the pipeline, no jumping on that particular bandwagon I'm afraid, but nice try!

Potnak, in one of your recent posts you state: "All of the companies in elcaps list released RNS' to say they were working on Covid 'products'". That's simply not true. When did PYC release a RNS to that effect? You then go on to contend: "Lots of investors got spike on almost everyone of them and when the Covid thing dies down, they will be left with big losses". What about Sareum? The tweets, the subtle hints that they were somehow in possession of the panacea for all of the Covid-19 ills? It turned out they just wanted to inflate their share price in order to dilute the long-term shareholders once again. This from Sareum on the 28th April this year: "The presentation will provide an update of Sareum's two proprietary TYK2/JAK1 kinase inhibitor programmes, SDC-1801 and SDC-1802, targeting autoimmune diseases and cancers, respectively. Dr Mitchell will also highlight the emerging potential of this mechanism to modulate the severe inflammatory responses and respiratory symptoms arising from coronavirus and other viral infections". Only later did it emerge that they hadn't even applied for government funding, 3 months or so after the outbreak in the UK began! The biggest threat to shareholders of Sareum isn't the science supporting their 4 early stage compounds (or, "commands", as you call them), but the ineptitude of the board of directors and people like you spouting nonsense in the vain hope of persuading shareholders to remain invested, for "fear of missing out" (or FOMO). FOMO is what has kept many of us invested here but I have now realized it's all a mirage. Continue to wait if you like, but I have moved on and can now invest in the many companies that I should have invested in back in March this year (many of which are indeed on Elcap's list and which were on my radar initially but I missed out on, foolishly believing Sareum would deliver on their promises). Enough said, but Potnak, stop deluding yourself and others on this board. You're simply WRONG!

So potnak, you seem to have become the apologist for everything that is wrong with Sareum. "If we want Tim to get us the best deals possible (yes, I did say deals) then he needs to be financially secure himself". I'm not sure that necessarily follows. In business, the more hungry you are the more focused on the prize you are. "How can he hold out for big deals if he is wondering how to pay his own bills(?)". What, a 100K pounds p.a. can't pay the electricity bill? Grow up! "I earned similar while doing IT contracts and you know what you spend it. You buy a bigger house, a new car. You get used to it". Oh, really? Well, perhaps you learn to live within your means, and perhaps therein lies the problem. The BOD have "got used to it", as you so eloquently put it. A raise here, a dilution there, we're alright Jack, and fcuk the shareholders. "Taking shares seems perfectly reasonable and it will encourage the board to get the best deal they can". Are you for real? The last time any of the directors bought shares in the company was in March, 2017, ffs and that was Stephen Parker, who at the time owned a grand total of 1,745,977 shares. Most of us on this bulletin board are more heavily invested than him! Finally, your last insult: "SAR could make some of us here rich and other than stumping a bit of cash we've done nothing". Yeah, right! We've done nothing! We've only stood by this company through thick and thin, believing in the science, hanging on every crumb of hope that suggested the BOD would deliver. Well, when I have to point out proof-reading errors in their presentations (to big pharmaceutical companies at high profile industry presentations) one begins to wonder if they really are interested in an end-game for us, the shareholders, or whether (like many AIM companies I could mention) they're really only interested in stringing us along so as to line their own pockets. "Let them get on with it". I'm trying to, really I am, but when people like you suggest I've sacrificed nothing by investing in this company, I have to call it out. Apologies in advance if I have over-stepped the mark. This will be my last post.

Hi Krone, I know what you mean in terms of missed opportunity. But, as the QuotedData article suggests, "we (Marten & Co) are not ascribing value to the COVID-19 opportunity, given this is currently at the conceptual stage." It would have been nice to get SDC-1801 fast-tracked, but I think other JAK inhibitors will take/are taking priority ("two approved JAK inhibitors – Oluminant (bariticinib, Lilly) and Jakafi (ruxolotinib, Incyte/Novartis), as well as a developmental agent, pacritinib (CTI BioPharma), have been fast-tracked into Phase III trials for COVID-19 cytokine storm. In addition, Xeljanz (tofacitinib, Pfizer) is in Phase II studies and Theravance’s developmental pan-JAK inhibitor, TD-0903, is in early human safety studies and expected to move into COVID-19 patients in due course"). We're just too far behind the curve, sadly.

So I emailed the Sareum website regarding the errors in their presentations, and received a reply (would you believe?, and much to TM's credit):
Tim Mitchell
Fri 19/06/2020 11:26

Thank you for your email and interest in Sareum.

Thank you also for pointing out the proof reading error in our recent presentations. This has now been corrected.

With best regards,
Dr Tim Mitchell, CEO

From: Richard Ferns
Sent: 16 June 2020 11:34
To: Tim Mitchell
Subject: Some clarification

Hi,

I was looking on your website for an update regarding BIO Digital, but alas could find nothing. So I did a little more digging and found some discrepancies in your slide presentations. I posted these on the Sareum bulletin board on the LSE website (lse.co.uk), but have copied the post below for your perusal. I would appreciate some clarification and also an update on BIO Digital which happened last week I believe. Thank you.

So, a couple of examples (if any were needed) of Sareum's poor communications. I was looking on the Sareum website for news re: BIO Digital. Under 'slide presentations', there is indeed a PDF with 10 slides/pages. In fact, this slide presentation is identical to the slide presentation given at Bio Trinity in April. On page 10 of both, SDC-1801 is shown as the 'lead optimization/candidate selection' for autoimmune diseases AND cancer. I was under the impression SDC-1802 was the lead optimization for cancer. I then watched TM's video presentation entitled "Next Generation TYK2/JAK1 Immunotherapeutics for Autoimmune Diseases and Cancer (and Covid-19)" at BioTrinity, April 2020. Around the 8 minute mark there is a glaring contradiction in what the slide states and what TM says. The slide shows: "GM-CSF signals via JAK2 - so JAK2 inhibition is LIKELY to undo the effects of restoring GM-CSF". However, TM clearly states: "GM-CSF signals via JAK2 - so any JAK2 inhibition is UNLIKELY to undo the effects of restoring GM-CSF levels here". The first example is simply a proof-reading error, but a schoolboy one at that. It hardly inspires confidence. The second example is more worrying as it creates confusion. Which/who is correct? It's these kind of rookie mistakes that irk and probably turn potential licensees right off, IMO.

I was perplexed by Sareum's latest tweet - https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1272811643785838593 - (as were many) referencing Eli Lilly's phase 3 study into reducing mortality in Covid-19. What relevance to Sareum? So I did a little digging and found this: https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/80/8/1735. It's actually on the Sareum website under "Publications related to Sareum programmes". In the article, it discusses the use of SRA737 "in an unbiased large-scale siRNA screen to identify novel mediators of CHK1 inhibitor sensitivity and uncover potential combination therapies and biomarkers for patient selection". It continues: "CHK1 inhibitors have been shown to potentiate a number of chemotherapeutic agents, in particular gemcitabine", gemcitabine belonging to Eli Lilly. Now I may be barking, but could this be the link? I mean that SRA737 is perhaps being on-licensed by Eli Lilly (not in the fight against Covid-19, but in lung and colorectal cancers), hence Sareum's somewhat cryptic tweet? I'm probably totally wrong, so please don't be too hard on me(!!), but does anyone have a view? The article is definitely worth a read, if only to underline the promise of SRA737.

Thank God for the Great Gatsby!

So, a couple of examples (if any were needed) of Sareum's poor communications. I was looking on the Sareum website for news re: BIO Digital. Under 'slide presentations', there is indeed a PDF with 10 slides/pages. In fact, this slide presentation is identical to the slide presentation given at Bio Trinity in April. On page 10 of both, SDC-1801 is shown as the 'lead optimization/candidate selection' for autoimmune diseases AND cancer. I was under the impression SDC-1802 was the lead optimization for cancer. I then watched TM's video presentation entitled "Next Generation TYK2/JAK1 Immunotherapeutics for Autoimmune Diseases and Cancer (and Covid-19)" at BioTrinity, April 2020. Around the 8 minute mark there is a glaring contradiction in what the slide states and what TM says. The slide shows: "GM-CSF signals via JAK2 - so JAK2 inhibition is LIKELY to undo the effects of restoring GM-CSF". However, TM clearly states: "GM-CSF signals via JAK2 - so any JAK2 inhibition is UNLIKELY to undo the effects of restoring GM-CSF levels here". The first example is simply a proof-reading error, but a schoolboy one at that. It hardly inspires confidence. The second example is more worrying as it creates confusion. Which/who is correct? It's these kind of rookie mistakes that irk and probably turn potential licensees right off, IMO.

Today is Friday, June 12th. Maidit308: "today is the last day for BIO DIGITAL it was for 4 days starting from Monday the 8th". Not sure why we have to wait, as shareholders (and therefore part-owners), until Monday ("so video won't be posted until Monday next week possible..."). If BIO DIGITAL finished on Thursday, are we not owed an update? I mean, seriously?
I'm a believer, for sure, but I don't like being played for a fool. Be professional and run your communications efficiently please.
It's not rocket science. Rant over, and out.

Let's hope it's a full house for all of us, with a holiday for two somewhere exotic thrown in!

5/6/20 someone over on PYC bb wrote: "Props I’m thinking 20p by next month but it will be a short spike so I’m selling if it does and chucking into sar .learnt my lesson before not making the mistake again". Ring any bells, Utah? So you're expecting PYC to increase by over 400% by July and then you're going to pour all your profits into the flea-bitten dog of a share that is SAR? Now who's deluded?

Turdman, "10 years on they are still peddling the same message..." Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your posts on this BB.

Talking to yourself.

I'm with Ahfam and RMM - this is good news for Sareum and SRA737. Anyone know anything about Aimmune Therapeutics, of which Dr Stephen Dilly was CEO?
Also interested in the following wording: "I am excited to lead Sierra, which has already clearly defined the regulatory path for momelotinib, launched the MOMENTUM Phase 3 trial, and positioned this unique asset as a differentiated treatment that may address unmet needs in myelofibrosis". The crucial word here is "may" in my opinion. There is some doubt. Perhaps the change at the top will usher in a change of focus/strategy, with SRA737 finally getting the attention it deserves? Time will tell.

Hi Krone, the companies working on treatment development for COVID-19 are some of the big hitters in the pharmaceutical industry (see the link below):
https://www.abpi.org.uk/medicine-discovery/covid-19/what-are-pharmaceutical-companies-doing-to-tackle-the-disease/
So I would imagine Sareum (a tiny fish in an ever-increasingly large pond) would need to partner with one of them.
I also found a fairly recent article highlighting potential treatments (please see below):
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/covid-19-new-drug-candidates-treatments-offer-reasons-for-hope
Under the 'What are the new drug candidates?' heading, the article mentions a team of Chinese-based researchers. I wonder if that has anything to do with our FLT3+Aurora? It's a long-shot, I know, but it could explain the silence.

Piste off?

In a bit of good news(!), technical analysis would seem to indicate a buy signal. Here's the link:

https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/LSE-SAR/technicals/

I'm no expert, I'm afraid, but by the looks of the chart below, every time the 20-day moving average crosses the 50-day moving average (to the upside) this heralds an increase in the SP. Also, the recent movement looks very similar to the movement we saw in early 2016. Here's the chart:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/technical-analysis.html?fourWayKey=GB00B02RFS12GBGBXASX1

Just trying to inject a little positivity! All best, Glen.

Thanks for posting this. TD was extremely thorough and, imo, very convincing about the long term prospects here. Short term there are obvious question marks but with TD at the helm I'm confident of my investment. GLA.

Yeah, my dad used to say the same thing about RIT. "If it's good enough for Lord Rothschild, it's good enough for me!". He made a serious killing on investment trusts post-2008. I'm seriously contemplating buying in at these levels - any negatives? Anyone?