Member Info for HotblackDesiato

Good news, Warthog. I hope after she got home you said, 'before you sit down can you just show me where you hide the iron?'

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287933640_Is_humor_the_best_medicine

Regards.

Morning Leggster - I think SP didn't really mention the new CNS compounds simply due to time constraints. He hinted that we'd hear more on 737's future reasonably soon and we're 1/4 the way through 1801 tox study with the academic paper to be published shortly so that's taking our main focus. Difficult to know if the CNS compounds were rustled up to impress a specific suitor or just to provide additional window dressing for the wider pharma community.

IF we get a 737 deal then it could at least mean no further dilution and depending on the value, we could give the illusion that we could take 1801 into P2 ourselves (though they'd probably get a CRO to run the study). By 'illusion', I mean we wouldn't have to kowtow to a pharma even though a partnership/license would be the BoD's preferred route as they'd always said the plan is to develop to P2 readiness and then hand a compound on to the next player.

Hope that all makes sense!

All sounding very positive for the year ahead.

On the final slide, re 737, it mentions 'KOL advice' - for info: "Key opinion leaders (KOLs) are external experts, such as healthcare providers, insurance professionals, patients, caregivers, and others who can share valuable expertise, opinions, and perspectives in managing a disease state.

KOLs play a critical role in assisting pharmaceutical, medical device, and similar companies in making informed decisions across the entire product lifecycle, including drug development, clinical trials, clinical research, regulatory compliance, and commercialization.

KOLs are sometimes defined narrowly as physicians specializing in, for example, a particular branch of medicine such as cardiology or rheumatology. However, the modern concept of a KOL has broadened to include just about anyone impacted by certain disease states."

https://www.extendmed.com/news-and-resources/kol-management

Hi Cerrito - welcome to the forum/madhouse. Are you able to say if SP was fielding questions after the presentation? It would be encouraging to know if there was an orderly queue wanting to speak with him afterwards. Please share any other intel you have for us!

Hi PCS - any prospective investor will have looked at the lengthy downward trend in sp and would need pretty solid reassurances from the BoD that the endgame will be worth it. Either strong evidence that they are working hard to license/sell 737 and/or the 1801 tox study is a formality ahead of bigger things.

Hi Pav5 - feel free to use them in an e-mail however I'm more inclined to think you'd get a straighter answer by asking them at an event specifically aimed at seeking new investment i.e. the would-be investor has a degree of leverage in that they have something the BoD want - money! The BoD can't say anything that isn't already in the public domain but should be able to allay fears that the company isn't just a moneypit.

Irrespective of what has happened with other companies that SP has been involved in, 1801 appears to be moving along (very slowly but steadily) and IF the tox results are good/excellent then it may turn out to have all been worth it in the end.

You'd think that any potential large investor would be asking probing questions at the event -

To ensure the right man is leading Sareum, can SP provide verifiable examples of where he has played a key role in adding value to a business?

Is there current interest in 737 within the industry?

Will the BoD keep investors briefed on 1801's progress through the extended toxicity trial?

etc.

Will someone please return the missing capital letters from that last post and also substitute the asterisks for another word that means 'chuckling'.

hi laz - just for info, any company buying shares in sar via multiple subsidiaries would still have to submit a tr-1 when the cumulative total breached the tr-1 triggerpoint as the parent company is the ultimate beneficiary of all those shares. this means a company can't suddenly pop out the woodwork one afternoon after transferring share ownership from the subsidiaries to the parent and then insisting a t/o offer of 20p a share is perfectly acceptable and we should all be bloody grateful.

if we ever reach a t/o offer (stop s********* at the back), i think we have something like 28 days to seek counter offers from other parties so thankfully it wouldn't be a case of having to decide within a day or two of an offer.

happy to be corrected though.

Hi Aber - I can understand giving one company first refusal but also I'd expect every decent pharma to have a small team of people keeping their bosses informed of developments in whatever area they specialise in, whether it's cancer or autoimmune etc. etc. As SP alluded in his reply to me, a company would be expected to carry out their own due diligence meaning they should be aware of all the various runners & riders in their specialist areas in much the same way BMW can't release a car without Audi finding out about it.

I guess the BoD might get a CRO to give their thoughts on the paper prior to submission for publication but I think if JR can write successful patent applications then he can probably also write a paper on the Oz trial.

The only concern I might have is if he/the BoD decide to postpone the paper until after the tox trial in order to include that data too. While we may have some entity guiding us down the tox study path with a view to a deal at the end, publishing a paper now would surely attract more interest from big pharma.

LJ - I think you're getting mixed up. The trial results were published on 13th April (I posted a link to them that same day). I think what you are referring to is the paper on the trial itself. This isn't something you just bang out like a school essay the night before it's due to be handed in. JR is drafting it for publication and it'll be done right.

For all we know it's come at just the right time and Tim can drop it into conversation whilst in Boston.

Hi C79 - some might find the links below interesting. The first is aimed at the layman, the second isn't!

If you scroll down this first link to the sections talking about possible side effects and contra-indications & warnings, you quickly realise what a minefield it must be when designing a new compound. 1801 must be walking one heck of a tightrope.

JAK Inhibitors: Uses, Types, Side Effects, and More - https://www.verywellhealth.com/jak-inhibitors-4706526#toc-possible-side-effects

A little bedtime reading - The Dual-Edged Sword: Risks and Benefits of JAK Inhibitors in Infections - https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/14/4/324

Regards.

Morning all - just checked my e-mail and have the following response from SP:

"Thank you for your email and the references to the two interesting recent papers. Researchers are free, and protected from patent infringement, to carry out their own experiments with any drug before it reaches approval for commercial sale. Such (successful) experiments are conventionally published in journals, such as those that you have flagged - the researchers are under no obligation to inform the patent holder, far less to seek permission for the work. As such, these sort of papers are freely available to anyone with familiarity with literature searching, which would include anyone engaged in due diligence on (in this instance) SRA737 and we - and before us, Sierra Oncology and the US biotech - would have no data available to us which has not been placed in the public domain via such publications.

I hope that this helps your understanding of the position."

So this underlines the reply Tim or John gave at a previous IM event - whilst a research group doesn't need to tell us anything, interested parties also have access to internet search engines!

At least it was a swift reply so I think the message has finally gotten through - don't ignore your shareholders!

Hi PCS - I asked a similar question a couple of years ago at an IM event and I think Tim (maybe John) said they wouldn't be aware of 737 being used in this sort of third party research as there was no obligation on the research group to inform the compound owner(s) of their work. I don't know if T&J subsequently started to look out for this type of thing now that it'd been brought to their attention.

Depending on whatever reply we get (or not!) I'll maybe offer to send them links to all of the research that specifically utilises 737 rather than the studies that only make passing reference to it. In an ideal world shareholders shouldn't need to do this but SAR is a effectively a two-man team so it's hardly an onerous task for me, plus I'm sure the Bod would like to pay me a small retainer!

Hi Krone - I've just pinged an e-mail off to ir@sar asking if the 737 data pack contains any reference to notable preclinical trials carried out by third parties (I gave examples) as surely any additional studies can only add to its potential.

If we don't ask, we'll never know.

Yeah, all a bit of a mystery wrapped up in an enigma! It would be nice to know if the circa 235Gb data file Tim has for 737 includes any of the research findings from outsiders i.e. not SAR, Sierra or the US-bio.

I'm almost tempted to ask SP since it shouldn't be price-sensitive info.

Hi Laz - I find it quite remarkable that despite 737's licensing woes, researchers around the globe have used it successfully in their work. Am I right in saying that during the last IM event I think Tim alluded to there being a couple of very interested parties around the time CPF signed the mystery US bio deal? We can only keep our fingers crossed that they're still interested and now that we're in the driving seat we can finally realise a true value.

The full article is now available here: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/11/1817