Member Info for HotblackDesiato

As I posted last week -

https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2017-004927-56/results

This was the trial that Sierra terminated due to focusing on moma. Since they've done the groundwork and GSK own Niraparib then it seems like a small spot of admin to resubmit the trial application with Sierra tippexed out and GSK scribbled in.

Hi Baton - yes, recession-proof stocks like pharma will be ok but in Genki's amazing insight they note that we're an engineering company. So we're clearly stuffed.

Great, I'll get LSE to let you know the addresses of all the people you now need to send a tenner to.

Wow, normally that level of detailed analysis is hidden behind a paywall.

Hi Blastoid/Celtic - I think this might be the Pfizer trial you're referring to.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04664153?term=PF-07038124&rslt=Without&cond=Psoriasis&draw=2&rank=1

Seawolf - just thinking - maybe the CRO isn't mentioned at this stage just in case the CTA is rejected therefore it's a sort of reputational damage limitation insurance. If the CTA sinks without trace then no one will know who the CRO was, if it gets approved then it's another success for their board.

Hi Seawolf - yeah, I'm not sure either. Possibly some business confidentiality angle that we haven't considered?

In the long run it won't matter to shareholders who it is but it's just another part of the jigsaw for those who like to know such things. All we have to do is wait for the CTA approval RNS then check which location in Manchester is recruiting for tests.

I agree Celtic.

Big pharmas' mergers & aquisitions people will make their informed decisions based on reading bone-dry trial results and not on the sound of party poppers going off during online meetings.

Do some people here really think GSK et al tune in to investor meets events for any of their research? These are open meetings for us low-level punters rather than confidential meetings to discuss the nitty-gritty.

However it's good to see some people still can't see beyond the end of their nose.

Searching the clinicaltrials website for P1 psoriasis trials in Manchester gives this -

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Psoriasis&cntry=GB&city=Manchester&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt=&phase=0&Search=Apply

So it looks like we can add https://www.macplc.com/ to the short list of possible CROs.

If we widen the search for psoriasis trials involving AbbVie, there are quite a few results with 12 currently recruiting.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Psoriasis&term=AbbVie&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=

With AbbVie's psoriasis drug Humira generating sales of $20bn per year it's no wonder AbbVie will want to retain market share. Question is, with the market leader already running many other trials, will Consilium be able to shout loud enough to catch their attention?

Surely if everyone followed the tactic to sell shares prior to a meeting then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you wouldn't need the meeting to take place?

"There's going to be a meeting later today."

Sell! Sell! Sell!

*SP drops*

Buy! Buy! Buy!

Job done, cancel the meeting!

It's manipulation, Jim, just not as we know it.

Labcorp are based in Leeds so not sure if they'd also cover Manchester.

Might be better off searching here: https://bepartofresearch.nihr.ac.uk/results/search-results?query=psoriasis&location=Manchester

Hi Laz, I can understand people who have been invested for years becoming impatient but at times it almost seems that some people are just willfully thick and don't understand the full ramifications of what we have going on here.

Would SAR be further down the road if they had more staff and could do more in-house? Possibly, but that would have its own drawbacks. At least by outsourcing a great deal of work SAR can pick and choose the best teams to work on each aspect of development. Yes, this approach costs time as you're reliant on those external groups being able to fit your requests into their free timeslots but that's better in the long run than ordering your own staff to get the job done 'now' even if they don't have the knowledge/ability to deliver.

Time for a long walk, I think.

So things are on track, earlier patents have served their purpose and they know how to extend the life of other patents, they're happy that they are applying tyk/jak in the most effective way compared to competitors and our man at GSK is relaxed about his investment.

And people are complaining, why?

I hope they manage to answer my question re the appointment of Consilium in the written replies.

Some people chose to ignore Einstein's work because he appeared to comb his hair with a balloon.

Evening Mayhem - not sure if it'll be PH that attracts the next investment. Look at the fundraising highlights link on Consilium's site https://consilium-comms.com/news-insights/monthly-intel/healthcare-newsletter/2020/newsletter/

They are clearly able to reach the broader market and get things done.

I wonder what the chances are of GSK carrying on where Sierra left off - https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2017-004927-56/results

This was the trial that Sierra terminated due to focusing on moma. Since they've done the groundwork and GSK own Niraparib then it seems like a small spot of admin to resubmit the trial application with Sierra tippexed out and GSK scribbled in.

Hi Lucan - a piece from New Scientist back in 2017 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2147472-ai-spots-alzheimers-brain-changes-years-before-symptoms-emerge/

I think they've given you a big clue when they say the other way to track progress is via clinicaltrials.gov - there's nothing to stop them progressing it ahead of publishing the Q3 pipeline.

Just to throw my tuppence in - there's a big milestone within view thanks to the CTA and the BoD have chosen this point to bring in new financial PR. Coincidence?

Whilst TM & JR are scientists first, the BoD do have experience of working in big pharma so they know how the game is played. Hopefully the BoD are positioning themselves to score big.