Member Info for HotblackDesiato

Hi Potnak - completely agree with the £3 minimum. Once the CTA is submitted I think we may see a surge upwards.

(I think SOG suggested they might not RNS the 1801 CTA news but as they've previously RNS'd for trials I'd hope to see something this month.)

Hi LondonW - thanks for the update. Funnily enough, yesterday I was just thinking about what you'd posted a while back - that a broker note wouldn't be for us punters but you might be in a position to get your hands on it. Top work!

Regards.

Just a spot of musing -

GSK will hive off its shampoo & mascara side into Haleon on 18th July so it might be worth keeping an eye on the pipeline's webpage in the days/weeks following the split.

https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/research-and-development/our-pipeline/#our-pipeline?oncology&immunology-respiratory

I suppose the thing we need to keep in mind is that although news sites reported GSK wanted the whole Sierra 'shop' and we equate that to them having immediate plans for 737, it could also be interpreted that they specifically wanted the Sierra staff to join them and 737 is just a pleasant bonus. Remember, it was a merger and not just a case of them only buying the IP.

However, based on the incredible benefits that 737 appears to show when used in combo, GSK would be mad not to progress it.

Anyway, I don't want to put WIP on the spot but if you're reading this and have any news or even some vague gossip...

I thought the Wall St Baloney and Motley Toot content was autogenerated by low budget AI & bots so what would you expect?

JP8891 - this should work https://stream.brrmedia.co.uk/broadcast/62a0bea519aa2a662fe17234/62c2b4c3c0d3e61cd0c99429

To those complaining about a dull or lacklustre RNS. Would you rather have methodical scientists dealing in plain facts or would you prefer shysters peddling lies and unfounded speculation?

I know why my money is in SAR and not something like 4d Pharma.

"A do a deal now and design your own trial or we will do it our way scenario."

Hmmmmm, quite possible but if the BoD have absolute belief in what they have then I can see them putting the blinkers on and going ahead on their own for the CTA. As they've previously said, the CTA doesn't need to give any disease indication so it's just a safety trial. Once they know it's safe (within acceptable limits) then we'll be better placed to maximise future deals/partnerships.

Regards.

Hi Potnak - I've posted it before though quite some time ago now.

There's clearly more to CTA submission than just filling in a form - for instance the peer review may take some time and that element is clearly out of our hands. At least, as you point out, funding isn't an issue so it's just a matter of pushing through the red tape.

I think they've said there isn't any issue with manufacturing and it's all on track.

The waiting can be frustrating but I liken it to taking kids on a road trip - are we there yet? are we there yet? are we.....

Hi Aber - why is the CTA taking so long to submit? If you look at the diagram in the following link, you'll see the actual submission step isn't found until you near the middle of the map https://www.ct-toolkit.ac.uk/routemap/

I think some of the application completion is outsourced and as I recall from the last investormeets Q&A, they don't need to wait for delivery of the capsules prior to submitting the CTA.

They've said they expect to submit the CTA mid-year so I'd hope that means this month.

As the song goes, it ain't no fun waiting round to be a millionaire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSIFNuFa-RE

Thoth - Could be worse, he could insist on spooning afterwards.

SOG - I certainly don't envy the task our BoD have in choosing the initial target for a compound. I'm picturing a sliding scale where at one end we try to muscle-in on an established high-value market and at the other end you have the chance of being the only drug of choice albeit in a smaller market.

No doubt this is where the various consultants we employ will earn their keep but at least it would appear 1801/2 could be highly effective in multiple indications.

Hi SOG - I'm not sure we'll know what the intended indications are for 1801 when the CTA is submitted. From the March RNS covering the toxicology report, "Sareum is working with specialist clinical trial consultants to design the first clinical trial with SDC-1801. This Phase 1a trial will investigate the safety of ascending doses of SDC-1801 in healthy subjects prior to the selection of an initial indication for further clinical study in patients in any subsequent trials."

My interpretation is they're keeping all options open until the next phase. This is probably beneficial as it'll allow potential partners to pick and choose future direction for 1801.

More patience required, I'm afraid.

The page below will be the place to keep an eye on however it does note, 'For competitive reasons, new projects in pre-clinical development are not disclosed and some project types may not be identified.'

https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/research-and-development/our-pipeline/#pipeline-changes

Doesn't look like we've been added to their spreadsheet just yet ;-)

SCH - rather like that old joke, what's the difference between pink and purple? Your grip.

Hi SCH - damn those pesky semantics!

Yeah, you'd think that although we weren't part of the license negotiations, we are a stakeholder. Therefore wouldn't it just be some sort of business courtesy to inform all stakeholders of what they can expect re future intent?

Hi SOG - yes, I don't think the GSK lawyers have too much to worry about but litigation does seem to be a popular sport in the US.

Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what GSK does next re aquisitions. From the article Celtic and I linked to last evening, "Chris Sheldon, who has been at AstraZeneca for nearly two decades, will join GSK as a senior vice president, leading the commercial aspects of its business development, the company said in an emailed response to queries Wednesday.

He will identify late-stage deal opportunities and work with the research and development team to execute transactions, according to the statement, which confirmed an earlier Bloomberg News report. Garrett Rhyasen has also started at GSK this month as vice president of oncology search and evaluation, the company said.

“These appointments support our clear ambition to invest in our commercial capabilities to deliver future growth,” GSK said in the statement. “In addition to in-house development, GSK is committed to leveraging business development as a tool to secure access to external innovation, help shape the portfolio and further strengthen our late-stage pipeline.”

and

"Turmoil in the biotech sector could create opportunities for large pharmaceutical companies, and GSK is among drugmakers that appear to be most in need of deals, analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence wrote Wednesday.

“Mid-to-late stage pipeline assets would be welcomed at GSK, where growth seems tilted toward vaccines,” according to the BI note."

So from the above do we think it's a bit early for GSK to target SAR or are we a 'special case'?

I wonder if the various US lawsuits claiming Sierra shareholders have been fleeced on the GSK deal could mean GSK might wait until they've all been swatted away by their lawyers before they announce any big numbers for 737.

If GSK said 737 will be worth bazillions then that would only confirm the lawsuits have a point.

I'm beginning to think GSK might just quietly ensure the funding is there to take 737 all the way without much public mention of the market value.

Now if only we had a man on the inside....

Guilty as charged however Celtic and I are smart enough to be invested in SAR so not so foolish after all!

Sorry Celtic - I just found the same article and our posts crossed over. Great minds think alike!