Member Info for neilin62

Evening all, especially the long term holders.

Thought i would post again following absence due to circumstances, which i would like to thank you all for your kind comments.

I believe i may have narrowed down the possible UK/NHS partner in the LOI. (obviously can't name names)

i have identified 2 extremely likely contenders, and one 1 very likely, but for different reasons.

These assumptions have been arrived at by looking at who is involved with who, who have existing contracts in place with NHS Foundation trusts, and whose objectives align most closely with CIZ's, and which of those organisations have further collaborations.

Not sure if all are aware, but on 28th April 2026, HRA clinical trial reforms (biggest reforms in 20+ years) came into force. Because the validation data is being processed by an independent UK clinical diagnostic group tied to active Foundation Trusts, they can utilise the MHRA's risk proportionate fast track pathway to secure deployment across NHS screening networks.

The fact that Cizzle has recently secured a granted patent in Canada this "global equivalence model" can be leveraged to fast track UKCA marking without having to duplicate the baseline safety data (something i touched on previously when i mentioned retrospective data).

i would expect that the upcoming AGM may be an opportunity for the BOD to highlight the initial data trends for the first 150 of the 250 patient blood samples. If not, then certainly with the half year interim reports.

These initial results are crucial for us, as they are the baseline for the proof of sensitivity and specificity data which will be used to finalise the CLIA accreditation application. This will be the trigger that allow us to bypass the longitudinal end date and launch the test commercially in the USA.

This will be a direct path to the development of the POC lateral flow test, as the data from the CLIA will be used to calibrate the accuracy of the test strips, since BBI will be supplying the monoclonal antibodies.

Incidentally, on the subject of accuracy, BBi are the world leaders on gold nanoparticle technology. This technology can enhance the sensitivity even more, giving an amplified signal at the very earliest stages, and with miniscule protein concentrations.

Hope this is of interest, and best wishes to all.

Neil

Lateral flow test?

As i have previously commented - Allan's directors talks are all very well, but every one starts with the same "reflection"

We want answers, definitive news, and some realistic idea of a launch. Not "near future", "in due course", "progressing"

ALLAN / TIM / ANYONE?.......

I don't have time to keep on top of this along with my wife ( and now my daughter as well) health issues, so how about answering my previous queries put to you previously?

As you may note from my last message on the LSE BB, i have been away from the BB for a while due to my wife having a catastrophic accident which needed my attention (and still does)

After more than a year away, i have to say i am deeply disappointed as to "progress" here, and generally the lack of substantive communication with shareholders given previous complaints regarding this.

Despite previous communications and RNS's, interviews, etc we still don't appear to have a commercially available product.

We were told that we would have a product launched by April 2025 Almost a year later we still don't.

Reading back through various RNS's,:

We were supposed to register the first US CLIA with FDA in Sept 2024

Has this been achieved yet? If not why not?

We were supposed to have achieved CLIA certification in Nov. 2024

Has this been achieved yet? If not why not?

We were supposed to have received reimbursement codes and full launch in April 2025.

Obviously the launch did not take place. Have we received reimbursement codes yet?If not, why not.

18th March 2025 RNS "Appointed iGenome DX to launch the first test in US"

??? See above. The test was supposed to have been launched in April 2025 so who were supposed to be doing it at that stage?

28th April RNS "......As a consequence of this broader campaign, the launch date is 'slightly extended' and is expected to be launched in the near term.

9 months is not 'slightly extended'

Allan's comment look forward to reporting on the success of first commercially available test "in the near future"

9 months and counting??

18th August 2025 RNS again extended the strategy to reflect the larger market opportunity.

again, 9 months and counting??

29th Sept 2025 RNS .....when the test completes Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments ("CLIA") accreditation as a Laboratory Developed Test ("LDT").

So nearly a year after supposed original launch, it still hasn't even achieved acreditation?

30th Sept RNS BIO have invested in significant marketing and partnership campaigns to build awareness through a co-ordinated campaign and are now poised for commercial launch.

Poised over 4 months ago, and still nothing.

I also previously questioned the issue of the 10% or 1.5% ownership of BIO INC. following the agreement. Can you now advise if the ownership of the enlarged company is still 10% or is it 1.5% This clearly has an effect on shareholder value.

Previous communications stated that we were engaged in further test development which included breast cancer.

Since then, we have not had a mention of it.

Can you update us on this?

Also, any movement with the agreement with China?

Also, any news on development of latera

No i have not done a runner.

No i have not sold up.

No i am not keeping my head down.

To all genuine holders-

The irony of my last post wishing you all a merry Christmas and to take care of your loved ones.

3 days after Christmas, my wife had a catastrophic accident and has been in critical care with multiple traumas for 7 weeks.

Among her injuries are a broken back in 4 places, 4 broken ribs, shattered pelvis on both sides, a total of 15 broken bones and head injury.

To complicate matters, she contracted 3 infections while in hospital. Due to her injuries we have been in hospital with her 24 hours a day. This required a poly trauma pain team to try to control the pain, without much success.

We now have her at home but still on care, and i am tasked with administering morphine at all times of day and night, when the pain breaks through the multiple very strong painkillers she is on.

We "celebrated" our 43rd wedding anniversary with her in tears and me giving more morphine.

She has taken her first few steps. I am so incredibly proud of her.

When i have to watch what she is going through, and then see some of the whining on here by some because they haven't had news/share price increase/ etc. you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Contrary to what a few think, i have been correct about almost everything i posted with the exception of timescales, which i have openly acknowledged., and i am still convinced this will be a success.

I don't know when i will post again.

Neil

Just want to wish everyone whatever your position, and your opinion is,

a very Merry Christmas and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

We are all here for the same reason, so take care of yourselves and your loved ones.

Neil

That's because you read it wrong.

IF there is a reduction, and IF it is as low as 1.5% -

We are talking about the equity stake in CizBio - the company, NOT the royalties on sales, which remains at 10% on revenue.

Why are you so concerned? you aren't even invested.

Neil

(cont)

to take place.

Should this be the case having a material effect, then an announcement will be made.

The announcement of a further expansion into Caribbean and advance revenue was a nice little surprise.

I thought the first expansion would have been announced into Latin America, so clearly more to come.

Hope this helps.

Neil

Apologies in advance if this goes a bit muddled.

The questions about the significant shareholders register is a hard one to answer. The easiest way i can put it is as follows:

Under FCA rules, specifically chapter 5 - DTR5.3.1 (R1) holders that hold a DIRECT or INDIRECT interest in quoted company's voting rights attached to share issue is obliged to inform FCA within 2 days of the activity giving rise to the event.

Under the latest rules, this must be made to FCA by electronic means via ESS. This document may also be used to inform the issuer (in this case Cizzle Biotech)

There are a number of problems with this. The first being that if the interest is held in a nominee account (HL etc) although the rule that both parties should make the notification, in practice this would have the effect of double counting the voting rights. I believe this is why the actual holders don't always notify the company. The company can only update the holdings information, if they are informed by the holder.(and this is not confined to CIZ by any means). It makes a right mess of the numbers when mere mortals like us try and identify who is holding, who is selling etc. Especially important when the company is legally obliged to announce within 2 days, any change in shares issued in order that holders can determine whether they are then subject to requirement to submit TR! !

A further complication which i have raised with the company on previous occasions, is the jurisdiction of the issuer. If you look at previous TR!'s, you will note that some of them are made with the issuer being "NON UK issuer"

This is an incorrect statement, since Cizzle Biotech is clearly a UK issuer.

Whether this is done by accident or design......only the submitter can answer, but i will make you aware that a "NON UK issuer" is subject to different thresholds of the reporting requirement, so make your own minds up about that one. Look at who has issued a TR1, under this statement, and where they are located.

However, keep your eyes out for changes to the company's website., and there is always scope for something to be added to try and keep shareholders a little bit better informed over significant shareholder holdings.

I also raised the issue of the question of is it 1.5% or 10% of Ciz Bio following the recent announcement.

In short there is still information required as to this. It is all in regard of the addition of DEX_G2 to Ciz Bio's test kit library, and further tests yet to be advised.

In principle, i welcome any addition outside of the CIZ1B test that increases the opportunity to expand Ciz Bio's presence in the market, especially as our holding in the company is effectively free. The bigger they grow, the bigger our stake.

However, i need to balance that with the suggestion that our percentage of the company may be reduced.

In that respect nothing has been formalised as to what any percentage would be, and indeed, IF any dilution is (cont)

Hi Fastfood

I had already raised this, along with the question over the 10% / 1.5% query, and a couple of other queries i have.

I have received responses, and i will update you later when i get home as i am awaiting confirmation on something.

Neil

LB,

Additional was what i read it as too.

I asked the question last night, as to where it is an additional 1.5% of "the company".

The way i read it, it is in the Cizzle Bio CF Investors SPV LLC, as an option,

Hope to have a definitive answer today.

Neil

My take on not repeating it yesterday, goes back to the arguments we had on here a couple of months back, as to whether we had received the $100,000 initial payment.

Some were saying that it hadn't been received, as there was no RNS confirming it, but i said that there was no need to put out an RNS confirming it, as it had already been "confirmed" by nature of the MOU. It clearly stated that the money was due to be paid within a set timescale on signing the MOU, which it was. And, as it turned out, was confirmed anyway in later RNS's

BUT.... i would agree that if it had been confirmed in an RNS, then that would have settled it, answered the question, and settled the nerves. It may just be that they didn't see the need to confirm again, or as Fastfood says, just an oversight.

However, i would caveat that with the thought that the BOD's responsibility is to get this business to market, (and please forgive the next phrase, as it's the only way i could phrase it) - not to be worrying about pacifying members of a chat board. That was not meant to sound as harsh as it may seem, but personally, i don't want them to be worrying about me, i want them to concentrate on the job in hand and get my investment growing.

On the other work at York, this is going to sound like i am defending the BOD on every occasion, but as i see it, they can't win. If they mention it, people want timescales, and dates. That's perfectly justifiable. But as we have seen again on here over the last few weeks, any delay whether actual or perceived, is immediately jumped on. If they don't mention it,

then " it's failed, it's not happening, there's no project" etc.

As Allan has stated many times, Cizzle Bio is not a one trick pony. There are projects in development, but this is Pharma. Things happen, changes need to be made, things take time in this industry, as it's not like making widgets, different mabs, reagents, antibodies, all react differently to each other, to conditions, etc.

I am bloody sure Dawn Coverley would just love to mix A with B and hey presto! If only! but then again, if it was that simple, we wouldn't have a business would we.

Neil

Fastfood

He has confirmed it.....twice.

RNS 17/06 3rd paragraph of the highlights -

• Minimum advance royalty payments of US$2.3 million, as part of the 10% royalty to be paid on gross revenues minus taxes, are due over a period of 30 months following signing of a binding agreement.

paragraph 4

• On completion of the binding agreement, Cizzle will own 10% of BIO for no cash consideration.

and again in RNS 25/07/24

paragraph 3

There are NO OTHER AMMENDMENTS to the terms of the MoU, detailed in the announcement on 2 April 2024

The additional time requested by BIO was to complete the additional funding. Otherwise the contract would have been completed 1st August. So to me at least the signing of the contract is confirmation that all funding is complete, and to be fair, we now own 10% of a bigger potential, than we did previously.

The "strategic investment" wasn't a completely separate deal that has been suggested on here, but in my opinion, more of an investment as to funding to get more of a presence in the other clinics, cancer centres, etc, because getting it into Moffit is one thing, but as Allan stated, there are 880 of these centres in US, and with Bill Behnke's (in particular) contacts in this sector, i think they have seen the potential, it has grown a bit, and more quickly, than initially planned.

Neil

That's what we wanted.

Neil

Remember our competitor Grail? The one i warned about reading past the attention grabbing headlines?

You know the one that was supposed to detect 50 cancers with high accuracy? the one being trialled in NHS?

Seems it's not quite what was promised.

NHS not happy as they thought they were going to be.

Serious concerns over ethics, results, the way the contract was given, political figures involved ........

Have a read up on BMJ investigation doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1706

Get our test rolled out in USA, then get stuck into NHS. I seem to remember a statement previously made by Allan about "supporting market launch in NHS"

Neil

widglide

do some homework

xgenera are at "seed funding" stage of their research.

i know that they previously submitted funding application for £2.5m from private investors (like ciz did 10-15 years ago) from what i can see, they haven't been successful. i can also see a funding round of £4m which again i can't see any success, as their accounts do not show any such funding.

incidentally their company shows capital on registration 16 months ago, of £20.00

their capital/reserve account shows a deficit of £812.00

not such an amazing company are they. i spent more than their accounts on our christmas party!

also, if you look at their website, you will see a statement "xgenera has also received external investment from qantx to further develop the test"

this would be the same qantx where richard ian lay**** is listed as ceo/co founder

and ceo of xgenera.

lending money from one of his firms to the other?

now it would seem they are getting a government handout in this £2.5m funding.

ps how many times, i am not an insider.

if i tell you things you say i am.

if i don't tell you things you say i am.

i am not! is that clear enough for you?

pps you slate me for not telling you if i knew about xgenera. well why didn't your research tell you?

your "research" consists of 'will be sub 1p', - no it isn't, and no it won't.' fact - china won't happen' - yes it will.

nhs are aware. i have told you before, i have spoken to certain people in nhs (professors lead clinicians and one very imminent professional who thanked me for the information)

test will be commercialized in us, then i expect southern hemisphere, ldt into nhs, and clinical trial in china.

there you go, something to get your teeth into.

ppps why do people focus on the revenue, and only mention revenue from the ciz bio side of the business? that is only one income stream. very strange

neil

AGM DATE,

Aim cannot dictate the timing of AGM's etc.

That is laid down in Companies Act. 2006

If i remember, the act was updated, with one section in particular that covers this issue.

It was Chapter 4 when they changed the requirement for private companies to no longer be compelled to hold AGM's.

In that chapter, they updated section 583 to replace section 366 which required publicly traded companies, to hold an AGM within 18 months of registration, and thereafter, within 15 months of previous AGM, and in any case, within a calendar year.

The new legislation requires an AGM to be called within 6 months of accounts reference date. (company year end)

In EUA's case, that date is 31/12/23, so appears to be well over the prescribed requirement.

The enactment was to "ensure that shareholders had a more timely opportunity to hold directors of a public company to account".

I could be wrong so don't shoot the messenger.

Neil

RickyK,

Brilliant! Gave me a good laugh.

Well where do i begin?

Comparing a test for lung cancer to a test for prostate cancer - you may as well compare the performance of a Mini to a Porsche. For one thing, what were the parameters used in the computation of the prevalence? CIZ gave 3 sets of results using 3 different selected thresholds. So you can't say that 51% was the BEST result.

What was the threshold Oxford used? None of us know, so we have no conception of the result.

What stage of the cancers development did Oxford use in their results? None of us know.

Also the example comparison was flawed in that if you read the facts, it states those results were a combined result of a PSE test in conjunction with a PSA test. No doubt CIZ results would be very different if you combined it with another test?

I believe It is more difficult to detect lung cancer, given that nodules are present which have nothing to do with cancer., so that skews the results.

Stating that "PPV is probably THE metric that healthcare professionals will use when deciding whether to use the test en masse" is absolute cobblers.

Doctors will normally use a combination of tests to reach a diagnosis - from Royal Marsden.

" PPV value is very poor" really? As above, compared to what parameters of others?

Are you aware that Grail test (Pathfinder study) PPV is 43.1%?

" i just can't see healthcare providers getting excited by those figures"

Strange then that Grail has sold 180,000 test in the first quarter 2024 with results apparently worse than Ciz test.

To be totally honest and clear, i'm not going to pretend for one second that i can guarantee that CIZ 's selective results as published in this document are good, bad, or indifferent, but i think i would rather put my trust in our BOD, and Bill Behnke and Ron Greeno's extensive experience than in someone who posts on here.

Neil

Hi LB,

I think that the majority of future deals will be structured in a similar fashion to the USA.

As Allan has indicated previously, we are to all intents and purposes, a "virtual company" so without having the associated costs of multiple millions of pounds of laboratory sites, scientists, etc. etc. we outsource those activities, so we rely on licensing deals.

The one exception i believe will be NHS, as again, Allan said as this was UK, and we are a UK company, he would probably like to see this as a deal between Cizzle and NHS.

The key at the minute is the implementation of the US LDT, so as to get this into the market, thus allowing us to roll out to other countries.

Global has been mentioned many times.

Neil

LB,

Agree fully. lets get back to what we should be discussing.

" It is anticipated that the binding agreement, together with an initial royalty payment of US$300,000, will be completed within this 120 day period",

So given the 60 day extension, the BOD expect $300,000 within approx 5 weeks.

"Minimum advance royalty payments of US$2.3 million, as part of the 10% royalty to be paid on gross revenues minus taxes, are due over a period of 30 months following signing of a binding agreement."

I assume that the £300,000 initial payment is included in the $2.3million, so a further MINIMUM of $2million.

So yes, cash flow will be sooner than the 3 years projection.

Neil

"ah ricky... still talking about me and not your own investment"

pot calling the kettle black, since you have done nothing but whine about me for the last 2 days.

"or does it just lead to mor entrenched attacking of a messenger."

what, like your attacks on me?

"why didn't those who saw this prospectus post it's details months ago?"

probably because only a few were aware of it?

"my view of neil as changed dramatically over time. as i mentioned i got sucked into it because of posts (before i started really researching)."

so you were perfectly happy to receive information from someone you consistently accused of being an insider, but then ****ed your pants when i told you i wasn't? (but still accuse me of being so!)

"but i now see neil as a ramper who has got too much involved"

don't see how i can be a ramper when i told you repeatedly that i am in here for the long term, and not interested in day to day sp. and no, i am not too involved.

"why did neil suddenly have a melodramatic outburst with all these ridiculous legal caveats, for a perspectus that is basically in the public domain."

all these caveats?? just one as far as i am aware, and that was only because it wasn't technically in the public domain, but intended for certain investors. hence my comment about asking my solicitor for clarification.

"why did he present it as a "shhhhh... what i've seen is amazing!!" without including any details that he knew about?"

errr, i did include the details i knew about.

"i'm taking it neil must have seen that perspectus in april, but decided not to share - why?"

wrong again inspector clouseau. i very clearly stated yesterday that i was now in possession of the document. not months ago - now, and that i needed to speak to my solicitor.

"because neil and most on here (including cizz own rns') will only present the positive case for investment. "

i gave you the information as i saw it, and again, clearly, stated not to invest on anything i post. the fact that i am still happy with my investment is my opinion.

you have almost single handedly managed to turn a great bb into a slanging match, so i will not respond to you any further.

neil