Member Info for Ivyspivey

Hi Bob,
Your article states 3/4 ABs refused 10 years ago have now been Approved and Iclaprim is the 4th ABs awaiting decision.
Also the one Approved yesterday was resubmitted application.
As Ian has said the application for Iclaprim reflects lots of changes to trial protocols from Arpida days and MTFB have worked very closely with FDA.
Plus desperate need for new novel ABs

https://benzinga.com/z/13041771

Note the drug Approved yesterday with a PDUFA of today.Newscreleased by Company at same time

Of course Ray better to have a diversified P/F and irons in the fire.
Not saying there are not valid reasons for some if delays but facts are for Combo trial.This was first raised over 3 years ago and what actual real progress has been made since.
Same with Moditope how many years since the humanised mice results.
Simply not acceptable in the markets opinion that it has taken so long hence the long term decline.
Progress in many fronts has been made and will save time later but when you are like SCLP has to be fine with much dilution and that is why DE disagreement with RG etc is so Intetesting

Thanks TF
Trying to point out why I believe the SP is so low ATM.
Obviously having more platforms reduces the overall risk and yes science is great which is why we are here.But yes imo need to progress the most advanced one ie Combo or Moditope into clinic and concentrate on that to generate data.
Hard decisions sometimes and yes if they had plenty of resources they can progress more and CRUK and Bion Tech tie ups help enormously but need to get these trials started for the market to believe they are capable on delivering it in their own

Yes nice article WF and I know Merck like to cover all the bases.
Ray-you are right about the synergy is there and the SCIB 1 mono therapy data( swimmer chart) is fantastic and a fact even though they have limited sample size.
The issue as always is burden of proof.If you look at how many different Company’s operate in this space mostly with compellIng synergy and story then you have to ask why do people in the know not value this more appropriately.
The reason is this compelling argument is simply not risk free as many past efforts which experts would say I can see no reason why this will not work have ended by not being proved to work.
That is the risk the “ unknowns”.
Proving this excellent science is the key bit which SCLP realise.To generate the actual data you need to get these trials underway and that us why sentiment is so bad at the moment and was expressed by the attendant fall in SP and at the AGM.

Whilst pseudo and actual scientists get very excited about the “sexy” new stuff like TCR etc and yes very important to maximise the opportunity available but the danger of a Company with limited resources like SCLP is that it simply spreads itself to thinly and without ruthlessly sticking to a strategic plan is that it never progress,s.anything.

In simple commercial terms if you prioritise all the potential far off new stuff (TCR) over actually progressing the more advanced stuff(SCIB 1 Combo) then you run the risk of having to raise further funds or worse.

We know there are plenty of reasons why progress has been delayed many outside of SCLP direct control but AIM is hard on failure to stick to planned timelines whatever the reason so that explains why the SP is where it us

If you recall one poster can’t remember who reckoned the one accumulating institution on Reuter’s was taking the YA shares but sine thought the o e institution was YA.
Well on another share I am in someone has posted a link which gives a break down of the specific institutions and mutual funds which hold the Reuter’s info
If you put a different Company into the search bar you can obtain a similar share breakdown firvtgst Company.
I could probably have done the same with FRR if it was still listed but can’t as it is delisted.
I wonder if anyone more computer technically minded may be able to link FRR in some way and identify the one institutionnwpquited by Reuter’s as it may be revealing.
Please forgive me posting the link to the other share and totally ignore as it’s only relevance to here is to try and use the same firnatvto identufy the one FRR institutional holder.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/stockdetails/ownership/finance/fi-151.1.MTFB.LON?ownershipType=fund

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/stockdetails/ownership/fi-151.1.SCLP.LON

Shows Aviva out completely and supports off market transaction with M&G

Thanks DrM
Explains it all and also the M&G amount is split between various funds

% Shares Owned: 56.51%
# of Holders: 30
Total Shares Held: 168,051,916
3 Mo. Net Change: 0
# New Positions: 0
# Closed Positions: 0
# Increased Positions: 0
# Reduced Positions: 0
# Net Buyers:

I know some question the Reuter’s info but feel it is about right for MTFB.The top 4 SH ie Invesco/SG/M&G/AMP hold out 156m shares so another 26 “ institutions” holding another 10m shares.
Two points-a lot if these institutions will be small SH and not sure if AMP is actually one of institutions .
However to have support of 30 “ institutions” in itself could be seen as good support.
Any comments welcome

Tobias no the exact nature of the additional work was newer disclosed and although not pivotal to the NDA submission which I understand could have been submitted on the original timeline, the BOD unanimously agreed to delay to allow for it to be included.
I suspect it was to do with additional breakdown of the p3 data that secure a wider licensing label so maybe it could be Approved for moderate renal impairment with a number of additional risk factors( additional data may allow for specific risk factors like diabetes/ obesity to be specified and also the number).
This would not be critical to getting Approval but Increase the commercial net available to Iclaprim

Hi Ruck,
Cash burn will be higher due to increased salaries and taking on new folk.The market can easily work out when they need to raise and of course from memory think they only have headroom of 20%.
If they call an EGM say in 6 months will be interesting and of course we should have a much better idea of trial progress

DT Am a Geordie as well so understand the optimism gene lol

Sure this has been posted but just in case

http://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/07354c_29d460b65f2441b2905a6d71dc5cc734.pdf

In exactly the same way that MTFB send advance notices of relevant RNSs to the FDA as a matter of courtesy I would expect a degree of reciprocity

DT absolutely the way the process works is the FDA would raise any specific questions to MTFB who would respond so they would be well aware of any issues well in advance.
Yes the Add Comms are public events but would expect that MTFB would be informed in advance to craft any RNS or at least be told that the FDA were to make an announcement.
That is why I think the PDUFA date is the likely timeline

Butler get that ruddy bus out.
Bugsy do you mean when Blakey was playing darts and going for the Big Double and hit the lamp lol
Fkakry- get yourself down the Leopard fir a few of Coggys Tinnies

Well any substantive issue would have been well known to MTFB for quite a while now as they would have had to respond to the FDA query’s.The fact that all was well in December as evidenced by continued buying by M&G and there was no request for an AddComm is a good sign for me that there are no major unknown issues.
As for RNS my understanding was that any major news would be announced at the same time to AIM and Nasdaq so at 1.30 but after the Revive 1 results coming at 7am then it could change me anytime of day.

Evening Flakey,
You are even closer to me than I thought.
I had always had you down for a potter not a dabber.Most people I know in Nantwich only get upset if people think they are from Crewe lol

Merck & Co Inc.MRKKEYTRUDA (sBLA)FDA decision on KEYTRUDA in the treatment of resected, high-risk stage III melanoma 02/16/2019

No comments on this morning RNS apart from agreeing with the general sentiment that in was not positive and the market reaction reflects that.