Member Info for golfnut59

Guys, strap in: tomorrow’s RNS (Monday 8th) will drop the full ASH dataset that was only teased in Friday’s topline. We already know LYT-200 hit 38% CR/CRi + 13.2-month median OS in post-VEN/HMA R/R AML (a population where historical OS is

Guys, strap in: tomorrow’s RNS will drop the full ASH dataset that was only teased in Friday’s topline. We already know LYT-200 hit 38% CR/CRi + 13.2-month median OS in post-VEN/HMA R/R AML (a population where historical OS is

Thanks for sharing, Frank!

I’m really excited for the data – sounds like it’s going to be absolutely killer!

My spider senses are tingling… Tang Capital is loading up again

I’ll rest far more comfortably once the FDA grants approval for the LYT-100 Phase 3 trial. The verdict should arrive any moment now. Taking a short position on the stock seems like a risky move with this announcement on the horizon, particularly with the potential for rapid subsequent funding news for Celea. With this in mind, my skeptical nature suspects there could be an undisclosed problem with LYT-100—perhaps a reason for rejection by the FDA or difficulty securing a funding partner—that we’re unaware of. On the other hand, this recent short might simply be just another vulture of a hedge fund attempting to drive the price down. Three others have tried and failed at this tactic, so I’m crossing my fingers it’s the latter rather than some concealed issue with LYT-100 fueling their short position

803799

Your question: How does the >30% CR rate compare with current treatments for AML?

Answer: The RNS clearly states that standard-of-care treatments in relapsed/refractory AML achieve CR rates of only 6–12%. A >30% CR rate with LYT-200 in this heavily pretreated, high-risk population is therefore highly encouraging and represents a 3–5× improvement over SOC. The stronger results you’re referring to likely come from first-line or less heavily pretreated patients, where baseline CR rates are naturally higher. In contrast, LYT-200’s data are from patients with a median of 3 prior lines, including many fully refractory to VEN/HMA — making the >30% CR rate even more clinically meaningful.

Nerandomilast 52 week FVC showed a decline in lung function of 73.3ml vs LYT100 mean decline of -32.8ml over the same time frame. LYT100 wipes the floor with Nerandomilast. There is no candidate in IPF that matches the efficacy of LYT100 at 52 weeks, none. Im itching for the the p3 trial to get given the go ahead and for Celea to get funded. Once that p3 is underway I will rest easy knowing if the p2b data is replicated, PRTC will won a significant stake in a drug that will be worth multiple $billions.

The market is overlooking PureTech, but it won’t stay asleep forever. A similar mispricing was exposed yesterday with Spruce Biosciences. The market had ignored the stock despite stellar news about its drug, tralesinidase alfa (TA-ERT), for Sanfilippo Syndrome Type B. On August 14, 2025, Spruce released five-year integrated clinical data for TA-ERT, revealing a breakthrough for this devastating genetic disorder, often called "childhood dementia." The data showed that the drug halted progression of this terrible disease where children rarely live to see beyond their 15th birthday. There are currenlty no treatments for this disease. Despite this groundbreaking data, Spruce’s stock barely budged. Investors, fixated on the company’s past failures, overlooking the positive news staring smack in the face at them. They were stuck on the company’s troubled history, not its promising future. The turning point came yesterday when the FDA granted TA-ERT Breakthrough Therapy Designation. This external validation jolted the market awake, sending Spruce’s stock soaring over 1,300%. Remember, the trial data was public since August, yet it took an FDA designation to shift the narrative. This is a billion-dollar drug hiding in plain sight. How the hell was the stock priced so low?

Spruce has only $16 million in cash, so I anticipate a capital raise - likely around $50 million - within the next week to fund commercialisation. With FDA approval expected next year, even after the 1,300% surge, the stock could still 4 or 5 x in value from its current $130 share price ($73.42m market cap). This underscores how the market can sleep on exceptional opportunities. I see the same dynamic with PureTech. A Phase 3-ready drug with the best 52-week efficacy data ever for IPF should not be priced this low. Like TA-ERT, it’s a transformative opportunity hiding in plain sight. The market wont stay asleep forever. Full diclosure Im long SPRB.

Lol, the "Holy Grail" mention brings back memories of that guy who went all-in on Avacta during the COVID LFT craze and got it tattooed on his arm! Wonder what he’s up to now, his wild story even hit The Sun or some similar tabloid.

We know Tang is an activist investor so it’s likely he will ensure his holding is large enough to ensure he can exert major influence. I’m sure he has already got the backing of some of the large shareholders. It’s going to be so interesting to see how this story unfolds. Popcorn is out

Tang validating we are not all going mad & there is deep value here. I suspect the shares react favourably on this news today. It’s hard to imagine who would actually be selling here, shorts have disappeared and Q4 is so news rich I only see the share price going one way. HIGHER

Thanks Rockefellow. Good concise presentation. Seaport is very exciting

In the presentation, Lauren White CFO said: "we are in a really strong financial position & are funded through our key read outs of our two lead programms with some capital on the back end. Obviously we continue to recieve significant interest fom investors and we definitely think our story will appeal to the public markets when the timinig is right"

So there you have it, I suspect we see Seaport IPO within the next 18 months.

What makes this even more compelling is the ELEVATE trial’s robust design. Unlike typical Phase 2 trials that run for 12 weeks, ELEVATE extended to 26 weeks, providing longer-term data that boosts confidence in the results. It’s also the first IPF trial to go head-to-head against the standard of care (pirfenidone) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled setting. This rigorous approach, coupled with the reproducibility of results across blinded and OLE phases, significantly de-risks the upcoming Phase 3 trial. The consistency between the blinded data (-21.5 mL decline) and the switch cohort data (+20.0 mL for placebo switch, -23.1 mL for pirfenidone switch) underscores the reliability of deupirfenidone’s effect. Yet, despite this being the best monotherapy 52-week efficacy data ever seen in IPF, the market remains frustratingly indifferent. THE DRUG WORKS, people! We contiune to see evidence that Deupirfenidone doesn’t just slow IPF, it stabilizes lung function to a degree that mirrors healthy aging.

Just to remind you, the 26 week blinded data showed that deupirfenidone 825 mg resulted in an average FVC decline of just -21.5 mL (n=63), compared to -51.6 mL for pirfenidone 801 mg TID (n=61) and -112.5 mL for placebo.

Here is the section from the RNS today that analyses the efficacy of the switch participants:

“The new results presented at ERS provide additional evidence from participants who initially received placebo or pirfenidone for 26 weeks during Part A and then switched to deupirfenidone for 26 weeks in Part B. Those who switched from placebo to deupirfenidone 825 mg TID (n=17) had a mean change in FVC of +20.0 mL (placebo switch cohort), while those who switched from pirfenidone to deupirfenidone 825 mg TID (n=16) had a mean change in FVC of -23.1 mL (pirfenidone switch cohort).[3] These results provide further evidence from two additional patient cohorts that deupirfenidone may stabilize the decline in lung function to that expected of healthy older adults and suggest a potential benefit for patients transitioning from standard of care to deupirfenidone”

So the 26 week OLE data for those patients who switched from placebo to 825mg duopirfenidone actually improved their FVC by 20ml. What is really encouraging to me is those patients who switched from pirfenidone to duopirenidone had a mean change in lung function decline that was consistent with the blinded data from the first 26 weeks. This data increases the probability the phase 3 will replicate this incredible phase 2 data. Despite this excellent news, which further increases the PoS, the market does not give a damn. As usual, I’m left scratching my head. Why is the market currently dismissing the best mono therapy 52 week data we have ever seen in IPF from an efficacy perspective?

I can only assume we need to wait for FDA confirmation that the phase 3 has been given the green light for the market to wake up. This should be swiftly followed by the major market-moving news centred on the details of the deal to fund this extensive Phase 3. I’m looking forward to the webcast at 2pm today.

The LYT100 efficacy is unprecedented in IPF, as no 52-week study has demonstrated comparable results. The data shows lung function decline is so low that it matches that of healthy adults. The markets response, rubbish, sell puretech ! What the hell was the market expecting ? Not only was the LYT100 data - by a distance - the most efficacious of any 52 week IPF study EVER, it was also more tolerable than Pirfenidone - the current SoC. To add insult to injury we have just seen United Therapeutics add $4 billion in market cap after a good read out of its P3 trial for its drug Tyvaso in treating IPF patients. This trial showed the drug worked best in a combination setting working alongside drugs like Pirfenidone - or hopefully LYT100 - rather than replace them. The markets reaction to Puretech stock on this bullish news - SELL. The all time lows we are currently trading at is the market signalling 1) it’s hatred of the hub & spike model 2) it’s view that the pipeline is weak. This obviously completely contradicts what I have just written. I just don’t get it. What is the market seeing in LYT100 that I am not ? Could they also see the strong possibility of LYT100 becoming the new SoC in IPF, but because we are a good 2+ years from phase 3 data they aren’t interested in investing and will only do so closer to the readout ? It’s a real head scratcher

I'm very pleased that those parasitic hedge funds failed with their shorts, allowing me to significantly lower my average buying price here as an added bonus.

Ben Harrington the Betaville journalist has posted the following on the Betaville website:

UNCOOKED ALERT: PureTech Health said to ... - Part 4

Shares in PureTech Health have been in the doldrums recently after private equity firm Nordic Capital walked away from a takeover proposal for the London-listed biotherapeutics firm in April this year.

However, American activist hedge fund Tang has just shown up on the shareholder register of PureTech Health with over 3pc of the company. Below is a link to this morning’s announcement:

www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/PRTC/holding-s-in-company/17238822

Now, little old Betaville hasn’t encountered Tang before but it would appear the hedge fund has a track record of being activist and occasionally launching takeover bids for the companies it invests in.Mmm ... this situation be about to get rather fruity...

Link: www.betaville.co.uk/betaville-intelligence/yrul36gnv1u76u2zeqbne7ce0qf13jt2bxtf

I think we've all been loading up today. Well, all of us except Senator !

I agree, Rockefellow. My guess is Senator is just an agitator, I can’t find any other plausible reason for him passing comment here.

Spot on, Dallo. Our analysis yesterday of Millennium's misguided short holds even stronger now, with Tang's 3% stake disclosure demolishing Senator's "cheap funding" notion. Given Tang's track record, I'm confident he’ll continue buying to secure significant board-level influence. It’s a textbook activist strategy: acquire shares at these depressed levels (post-short-driven lows), then push for board seats or strategic shifts to unlock value, particularly with no permanent Chair or CEO to resist. The timing mirrors April’s Nordic saga, where shorts tanked the price just before a bid emerged. We may never prove coordination, perhaps it’s mere coincidence, but to me, this screams a calculated squeeze to force a lowball exit, just as I predicted when i started this thread yesterday. It materialised in under 24 hours. Game over indeed!