Member Info for HotblackDesiato

A very interesting video - https://www.theguardian.com/business/video/2024/dec/19/how-big-pharma-keeps-affordable-drugs-out-of-reach-video

And if you find big pharmas' tactics a bit depressing, this should cheer anyone up - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFDKOebP-n8

Very interesting, SOG. If there was indeed just one poor bugger having to deal with all CTAs then I can sympathise with them. I know all too well what it's like being told by management that you have to increase productivity whilst making cost savings. Stick a broom up my backside while you're at it and I'll sweep up too.

Not that the BoD could say anything even if they wanted to but did they seem optimistic for the New Year? Positive news on 737 might give the sp a much needed nudge whilst 1801/2 development continues.

Regards.

Hi Steve - wishful thinking on my part but if 1802 ever completes its translational studies, manufacturing and tox study then I'd see £500m as just an opening bid. With the experience of 1801, the BoD will know there won't be any manufacturing issues and tox should be broadly similar between both molecules (as SOG pointed out yesterday after speaking with JR they are the same but 1802 has more JAK1). I don't know how many t/o deals are accepted on the first offer but if 1801 is potentially best in class then it may lead to a bidding war - imagine big pharmas fighting over little SAR!

All just speculation but I'd hope for £800m+ if the clinical trial report indicates 1801 could truely be a pipeline in a pill for a pharma. Yes, we still need validation in psoriasis patients but that seems just a formality.

Thanks SOG - you've saved me some digging though I'll still have a poke around at some point this weekend.

Forgot to ask - did any attendees spot our Toblerone-munching friend?

SOG et al - thanks for the updates from those who were there. From my perspective a circa 850-mile round trip for a 30min meeting makes little sense at this juncture though that didn't stop FalkirkFreamer (full marks for effort!)

That's an interesting point SOG, re 1802's JAK content and the blood-brain barrier. Must do some reading this weekend.

Regards to all.

As and when the milestone shares in the US-bio are issued, how do we arrive at any notion of a fair value? The 137,500 shares could be worth 10p or £1m. At least we may have an answer in a couple of weeks.

Just glad that they answered the 3 questions I submitted through the IM platform - the system works!

So Nicely, you bought at peak sp (about 9p pre-consolidation) and at no point since then have you averaged down. Quite an achievement.

Hi PCS - the BoD won't discuss individual shareholders so even with a TR1 I doubt they'll say anything at the AGM other than they are grateful for that level of support.

Another way to flush him out though is to stand at the door of the AGM and ask every attendee for their passport. Brits will tell you to get stuffed but a Swiss national will hand theirs over without question. Rules are to be obeyed!

Hi Aber - just regarding your view, '.. which starts to become a worrying point regarding voting outcomes ...', I know what you mean but there's always a chance that our largest shareholders are willing to play hardball when it comes to any t/o offers. Perhaps they are on the same side us us smaller investors and want to see fair value.

Not every wealthy individual is out to screw the little guy.

Here's a thought, are we looking at a potential new CEO?

'course the easiest way to spot him would be to start whistling the Swiss national anthem during the AGM and see who stands up.

And another R Meier - https://ch.linkedin.com/in/roger-p-meier-31873011a?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fduckduckgo.com%2F

I imagine no one chucks that sort of money at an AIM company unless they feel it's worth more than a punt.

Just a name isn't much to go on but -

https://www.marketscreener.com/insider/ROGER-MEIER-A2UXDH/network/

scroll down to the Board of Directors - https://www.nemistech.com/about-us/

Sorry, PCS - I was typing up my thoughts when your post came in - I think we're on the same page here.

Regards.

I don't think a takeover is imminent but I do think the options have appeared in the nick of time for the BoD as:

1. they won't know the results of the 1801 peer-review until it is complete even though the BoD will have had access to the underlying data. If it is on time, the report should be out in a matter of days.

2. they can claim to be blind to any 737 progress since we are effectively sleeping partners in the deal and have to get our info from CPF. The license was announced to the market on 2nd Jan so the CPF may currently be in contact with the US biotech re payment of milestones.

So whilst news is days away, the BoD cannot say for certain that it will be good news so I think they might be safe from any breach of the rules on taking options. But what do I know?

That's the thing, SOG. People have to arrive at their own conclusions after reading a selection of evidential reports/studies. However that requires individuals to have an inquisitive mind, time to do their own research and a desire to reach a conclusion that doesn't necessarily feed a premeditated bias.

For those who subscribe to any conspiracy theory, it appears the more evidence you provide to counter their belief only seems to reinforce their convictions. Back in 2019 I was talking to the colleague I sat next to about the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. She said her uncle had been a geologist and had examined some of the rock samples returned by the astonauts (how cool is that?!). A colleague sitting opposite us piped up, "We didn't land on the moon, the technology didn't exist back then." I pointed out that we did have the technology but only just; we pushed its abilities to the absolute limit. She 'countered' this by holding up her mobile phone and declared it had more computing power than NASA had back then. I asked if she understood that the intervening 50yrs had seen much technological progress. She looked bewildered at this and continued her denial and that it was a complete hoax. Despite me pointing out 400,000 people were employed on this 'hoax', not even America's arch-enemy, Russia, disputed the moon landing. Surely if anyone could disprove it, it would have been them. The difference of opinion continued for a while until she was near to tears and she finally walked out.

For info, I get all my top conspiracy theories from the only source that can be trusted - https://www.teenvogue.com/story/most-popular-conspiracy-theories

Hi SOG - you may be interested to read this study: 'Risk of autoimmune skin and connective tissue disorders after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination.'

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10182598/

Both the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts consisted of over 3million subjects each and there was no evidence of a significantly increased risk of most autoimmune or autoinflammatory diseases in the vaccinated group compared to controls. Bearing in mind the scale of the study, the data recorded in figure2 (link below) is quite reassuring, no?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10182598/#fig2

"Our study found that the risk of AA, vitiligo, psoriasis, sarcoidosis, Behcet disease, Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, ankylosing spondylitis, and dermato/polymyositis was not significantly higher in vaccinated individuals than in controls. These results suggest that the post-vaccination onset of autoimmune diseases could be overestimated due to the intensive observation of patients and physicians regarding the possible side effects after vaccination. In addition, vaccination could act as one of the triggering environmental factors only in certain populations with genetic susceptibility and not in a healthy population. The findings of our study may address some of the public's excessive concerns about vaccination through a real-world population-based study."

In Conclusion: "This study comprehensively investigated the incidence and risk of autoimmune and autoinflammatory outcomes following mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. Overall, we did not observe evidence of a significantly increased risk of most autoimmune or autoinflammatory diseases in the vaccinated group compared to controls, although some of these conditions had small number of events, which should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that any potential risk is likely to be not large. Sex-stratified analysis revealed an increasing trend of ANCA-associated vasculitis in female-vaccinated individuals. Our data should relieve excessive public concern about vaccinations and not discourage clinicians from prescribing COVID-19 vaccines; however, long-term follow-up is necessary."

Regards.

Hi Leggster/Gekgo - I thought it may have been a typo and they meant December but since the bit I referenced was written by Clive Birch rather than some outsider, you'd think he'd get it right. Hopefully the AGM will bring clarity.