RE: Neil, Brond, Green - the Psychology of Ciz28 Mar 2024 17:54
Evening TTâŚIâm sure Neil will reply later, but he tends to do the night shift, so thought Iâd chip in with my thoughts :-)
â¨1) Allan Syms with âmarket in near futureâ quote was either naive, optimistic or willingly deceptive. (Any one of those is bad trait for a leader of empirical science).
(DG) I think this was an off guard comment given it was an internal call with scientists, I think very near term can be 12 months with that audience. However, if there had been better dialogue with shareholders we would be clear on timings rather than relying on inference.â¨â¨2) Last year he said we were about to start clinical trials, but this was patently false. (Again, deceptive, naive or optimistic)
(DG) I think probably naive, links into your point 1) if steps are known and timescales, these issues donât arise.â¨â¨3) The Portugese reagent company - supposedly the best - is out of the picture (with no RNS) and a French company âsuddenlyâ involved. (With no RNS). â¨â¨The obvious conclusion is thereâs probably been problems (of nature unknown). Thatâs a fair assumption, no? (Again, no communication from CEO, so assume negatives) â¨
(DG) I think there is way too much being read into this. There will have been a period of refinement of the various consumables and processes. We know it works on the protein simple platform, they know it will drive accurate results otherwise we wouldnât have got to this stage. You arenât getting folks to stump up ÂŁ600k or getting Bio-Techne signing RNS statements without knowing there is a tick there.
That testing will also had to look at sensitivities around shelf life, cold storage etc⌠and among that different mAbs. Again, I think this comes down to comms, rather than anything sinister. You canât just pull these off the shelf. If they wanted to change something that they think improves sensitivity, resilience etc⌠thereâs a process of gene synthesis, sequencing, engineering mAbs etc⌠time for this could be anything from 4 weeks to 4 months. It sounds like they have now got to a final commercial solution here. Add to that the question around capability, commercial scale etc⌠Iâd expect deck chairs to move in that process. Having said this, if they had advised the longer part of the process is finalising mAbs, establishing them for scale, rather than folding that into a generic clinical testing narrative, folks would understand it more. Equally if in the RNS theyâd stated they chose Proteogenix over Bio-Techne or Fair Journey because of X and Y, that would have been acceptable - back to comms againâŚ
Sign In
Follow the stocks
