The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
Interesting that the info about Dr A should have come from the ranting Swazer, aka Troll Finder General. I had nothing against Dr A, although some of his opinions (to which he is entitled) were somewhat over sympathetic towards PHE. But the relationship with Swazer made me wonder if they were somehow in cahoots; viz this recent rant (29th August)
" Infact I would go further and suggest that the person(s) behind the Testpack3 persona are criminally culpable by UK laws and should be held accountable in a court of law. Myself and Bob have access to the best lawyers and they fully back up what I am suggesting.
Anyway, it is perhaps a pity that Swazer does not follow suit. IMHO etc etc,.
JustThinkit
Thank you for this. I was wrong to think CTCs were only to be found when mets had already occurred. There was an RNS some time back mentioning mets occurring in association with clumps of CTCs which I will try to find. Something about CTC clumps also having neutrophils being more likely to metastasise. Obviously CTCs are the source of mets, as apart from local spread there is no other way for mets to occur.
But I agree with your conclusion .
By the way, do you trust ChatGPT in this sort of area? I am completely ignorant.
The question is: Why does Angle want to analyse circulating tumour DNA in addition to CTCs?. My simple view is that Angle realise that analysing circulating DNA is where the money is. Hence the huge success of Illumina et al.
I cannot see the point of analysing tumour DNA from plasma if one already has CTCs for downstream analysis.
Analysis of tumour DNA and analysing CTCs are at opposite ends of the therapeutic spectrum. The next step after isolation of tumour DNA from plasma is 'now go find the tumour', while the next step after isolating CTCs is downstream analysis of whole DNA allowing more targeted treatment of an existing malignancy.
Why does Angle not seek approval for Parsortix as a primary diagnostic (cancer screening) test?
Because it relies on CTCs which only appear once metastasis is taking place. By contrast, in situ malignant cells break down as a natural process (apoptosis) before any metastasis occurs and the tumour DNA fragments released can be analysed by the likes of Illumina and who can now give a good idea as to the source / site of the malignancy.
Sadly the world has moved on leaving Parsortix (and my investment) in its wake.
Mr Mann is now chairman of a company with major interests in Europe - the EU as we call it. Can we be sure he can go there, including Ireland without being arrested? He has major previous experience in other fields, doubtless he would say sanctioned by the CIA, MI5, etc,. More to the point; Do we know anything about his financial skills? What previous directorships has he held, and would said firms re-appoint him? To repeat myself; quite extraordinary.
From Crazyhorse post: "I was going to be the chief witness in any trial and the CPS guaranteed me immunity from prosecution in this country. But what they could not do was offer the same guarantees about prosecutions elsewhere in Europe. My own lawyers told me it would simply be far too risky for me to go ahead."
It is a truly extraordinary appointment; what is the subtext? I cannot believe for one second that Mann was appointed on his ability to Chair this outfit as a non-exec.
Bert
You are in luck as the Troll Finder General seems to have gone quiet for the present. You raise good points. We also had >£5M in cash at the last Report. But I doubt that PHE would want to raise cash twice, with associated costs. Anyway, their Advisors, who were paid in shares can already bank a profit of ~25% at the present SP.
Fevertreeman
Yes, I think AGL will initially make money - not much - primarily in research, and less, if any, in the clinical field. A huge overhyped, and for me expensive, disappointment at present. Profits are a long way off.
So we will have a 2 tpd of plastic demonstrator is S Wales sometime next year, while the daisies will continue to grow on Protos a while longer. I can see the sense in having something tangible to show the financiers, but remain deeply p1ssed off at the time wasted in the last 3 years. At least we have the certification from June 2021 to say that a full size model might work, altho' that certification was not completed. ("have completed stage one of the validation of the enhanced design to produce 2 tonnes per day of hydrogen.")
Patx
I am confused. The prototype being built at present is a 2 tpd DMG, but is that for 2 tpd of plastic waste or 2 tpd of hydrogen produced? i am assuming the former. but 2 y ago a form of certification for a 2 tpd of hydrogen was given: RNS 29 June 2021. Powerhouse Energy Group plc (AIM: PHE), the UK technology company commercialising hydrogen production from non-recyclable waste plastic, is pleased to announce that DNV, the international gas process design and certification consultancy, have completed stage one of the validation of the enhanced design to produce 2 tonnes per day of hydrogen.
The work was based on the recently completed update of the Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) for Protos which enhanced production options, allowed for variable feedstocks and produced large export packets of hydrogen for use by fleet operators.
So we are going backwards, making a 2 tpd of plastic demonstrator, or is this the 2 tpd of hydrogen full- on DMG for Protos?
Yes, I think we were all lulled into false confidence for 2-3 years when SFA was happening at Protos, encouraged by the reassuring comments of Dr A(pology). I really think we are, at last, going to see a working DMG. Meanwhile some one in Manchester Univ. is working on improvements to gas flow in the thermal chamber, but I hope that does not become a further source of delay, perfection being the enemy of the good etc,.etc,..
Ghengis
Thank you for this. Generally very good presentation, and a glimmer of hope. The newsletter skims carefully over the wasted years when SFA was being done.
Unfortunately KR does not check what he writes - or get someone to do it for him. The last sentence below means (at least to me) that PHE has not spent as much as RT when RT went into administration - with the implication that PHE is headed in the same direction having spent rather less. I am sure he did not mean it, but, not for the first time, he needs an editor!
"Compared to some, PHE has reached a fairly advanced point in the development of its product without spending large sums on equipment, buildings or technical development. Take for example, Recycling Technologies Ltd, to name but one. RT received over £75 million through various grants and deals, but still fell over and went into administration last year. PHE is not very far away in its technical development from where RT was when it went into administration but has spent nothing like that getting there"
Moab