Member Info for neilin62

Thank you Bronby

Also see the paragraph under the heading "General"

Neil

OAKP20

You don't get to demand what i post, and talk about pot calling the kettle black, how about some ff your cryptic comments?

and you and Widglide are wrong about me wanting to prop the share price up-

1. I have always said that i am in it long term, so i'm not interested in the day to day price.

2. Given the number i have been buying, wouldn't you think that i would want the price down?

How do i know about something they refer to as Project Marylebone? Nothing sinister, simply by looking.

Look at the header at the top of announcements /RNS's made by the company.

They all refer to the content.

Except this last announcement. This one is titled Project Marylebone - Placing Announcement.

Why would this be any different to all the previous ones, at a time they mention a new collaboration with a French company?

Neil

Fastfood,

That is obviously not the one connected with CIZ.

And Allan is aware of what is posted on here.

I,m not being cryptic. (not intentionally if that is how it comes across)

Project Marylebone is something specific to Cizzle Biotechnology

Neil

Allan

Can you explain to us PI's (Especially Widglide) what "Project Marylebone" is please?

Neil

See if i can remember part 2

....in the UK"

Again, he didn't answer his own question, but went on about USA

Sept 2023 interview - "obviously our shareholders are very keen to understand what's going on" Well how about telling us?

Like what is the significance of ProteoGenix? we know about extending the library of antibodies, as this has been discussed previously. But is it an extension to the original lung cancer test to include breast cancer (which we know is in progress) and the other cancer types i posted about? or is it a way to aid entry into EU with CE mark? We are all left guessing.

One issue i have either way, is i was under the impression that LDT had to be manufactured/validated/ used in the same laboratory? How does ProteoGenix tie in with us?

There has been a bit of discussion as to whether the China deal is dead.

No, not as far as i understand.

China cannot progress with kit development until we supply them with the validated mabs/reagents. There is also a binding agreement in place.

Techtonic, you asked why i am still sure of a positive outcome. I refer you to my previous answer, but will add that despite all the negatives i can find, and i admit i can find plenty if i look at it in detail, the fundamentals of the company have not changed from those prior to a p++s poor RNS. last week.

New investors.

£620k seems a very specific amount. Possibly the bod now know the costs of getting this over the line now that we are down to the last stages?

Neil

Boll==ks its just deleted part 2!

Evening all.

Techtonic - that Santa one did make me laugh!

Brondby, unfortunately forward selling is most definitely a problem and there are many,many examples to be seen.

However, in this last placing, i am not entirely convinced. There is something not consistent with the normal trading pattern when this takes place, as to what has happened here over the last week or so. Can't put my finger on what/why is happening, but there is definitely something different.

The trouble with having so many bits of information/interviews/reports to cross reference, is that this reply was going to end up 4 and a half x A4 pages long! and i can make arguments both for and against the same piece of information, So i

won't go over the same things again and try and keep it brief so as not to put you all in a coma, and hopefully it is not all over the place!

Greend100 covered most of the points to a good degree, and i fully agree with sentiment here about the loss of confidence in the bod's comms.

There are a number of inconsistencies in what Allan has said. Now whether that is accidental, purposeful, or just down to timescales i don't know, and we will each form our own opinion. But the fact is whichever option, it has had a bad effect on shareholders.

I'll list a few as examples.

1. March 26th interview. ".....Busily optimising our assay........" but you told us 24th April 2023 that key milestones on optimising had been met. Did something change?

"Generating new antibodies....." again, we have been told on more than one occasion that new antibodies had been generated.

Depending on your point of view, why? or is it as previously mentioned, that the increasing library of antibodies will be used in breast cancer detection (which we know is already in progress) and the other types i mentioned in previous posts?

Is this why the process appears to be taking longer than we all thought/expected?

Will the test which was initially being launched as lung cancer detection, being modified to use the same platform to detect other cancers?

2. Sept 23 interview - ".....goal is to COMPLETE our clinical trials......" any reasonable person would interpret that as the trials are in PROGRESS, since any other statement would surely be "goal is to COMMENCE"

3. As other have pointed out, on interviews, he spends most of the time explaining what Cizzle Biotecnology is about, and only brief content is on the actual announcement.

What i have noticed also, is that he starts on a subject then goes off on a tangent. For example, on last weeks interview he said

"key thing and what our shareholders are wanting to know is, what the progress has been on the development of our early stage lung cancer test "

He didn't even answer his own question!" he went on to say "these funds are going to be dedicated towards the priority of getting our first commercial test to market"

Same interview, his own question......"people would like to know when will this become available

Hi Greend100 & Techtonic

If i may, i will respond tomorrow.

I have a mass of notes, interview comparisons, written documents, questions and answers that i am currently re-visiting, and i intend submitting a further request that the Bod address specific questions.

I would rather give a more informed answer, than a quick response.

Neil

Evening Techtonic.

Apologies not needed, but appreciated all the same.

Yesterday was a bit of a fracas, as you say, which i think ,most of us got caught up in.

To that end, i have expressed my displeasure on the ambiguity of that RNS in particular, but also other previously made comments from Allan in interviews, and details stated within announcements.

Me being as subtle as a skip, probably expressed my views a bit more bluntly than Greend100, so i wait to see if they act upon the concerns i made in 2 emails.

Thanks to Greend100 for his effort. The more of us that voice our opinions the better.

To address 2 items you mention today, i was not the spokesperson for CIZ. Back when we were suspended, i knew that they were in breach of certain regulatory requirements, which left them in danger of legal action and substantial fines. As they were not giving shareholders any news AT ALL, i advised that due to the size of my holding, and with the backing of certain other shareholders, i had enough votes to force a section 304 if they did not respond. (which they duly did)

I communicated the discussions with this BB and continued to gain as much information i could share, as i could.

re your question as to how can i continue to hold for a successful outcome, -

quite simply, i have an issue with the way the board communicates with us, and what they say, (or don't say)

That does not detract from the science, and technology/research/people involved in this venture. If you read previous posts i made, they mention people in NHS that i have been in communication with, and that they are fully aware of CIZ and what they are doing.

Yes i am pi++ed with the boards communication and mixed messages, but i am still fully behind the end objective.

As noted by Hogbog and others, 4 clear milestones to achieve, and then commercialisation, so in spite of the last 2 days,

because of the increased IP protection, Behnke, Biotechne, chasing disbursement codes, etc,etc, i believe it will happen. But as i said before i can't give any timescales ( oh if only ! )

Counting cards - Thank you for your kind comment.

Neil

Well.....

First of all

Techtonic, i do not answer to you.

I have a company to run, so i am not always around when it suits you. Hence you will see some posts from me at all hours of the day or night. So no, i am not "smarting" As for your other comment that i knew beforehand what the RNS contained, are you accusing me of being an insider, therefore acting illegally?

At no point have i held myself out to be king of the board. As i stated previously, i only post my honest findings and opinions in the hope it helps someone make a few quid.

Yes, i was referred to in previous employ as the Rottweiller, and your point is?

Geez, hero to zero on the basis of 1 poor RNS. ?

Anyhow, so today's RNS has caused a real commotion on here. And to be fair, i agree with some of the points raised.

It does seem to raise more questions than it answered, and clearly led to some agitation - all of which is quite legitimate.

Honest opinion, is that until i digest the content further, and get answers to questions, i don't know how to read it. Some things i thought were further on due to previous comment by Allan, don't appear to be the case, or at least the position is unclear.

But in contrast to that, there are other statements that are equally ambiguous.

"Net proceedings to be used towards COMPLETING the company's FIRST proposed commercial test, and further protect the company's IP"

Slight change in wording from previous interviews where reference was "continue development"

That can be read in 2 different ways by 2 different people.

Scale up - i admit i was under the impression that this way already under way, given previous interview.

Again, not clear from this RNS, but looking from a different view, it is a step further along the process, so at least it is going in the right direction.

What about the new involvement of ProteGenix? Who knows?

Personally i think there is too much being read into this news. Is it possible that this is in some way connected with CE registration? Is it possible that a lateral low test requires a different antibody and ProteoGenix are the ones developing this? Again, the BOD do not give specifics to enable us to make informed opinions.

One intriguing thing today was the effect on the SP today, Yes there was a big drop (completely overdone i would suggest) but look at the trades. Where did 20% of the company's value go? certainly wasn't 20% of the shares sold.

I will hold off on my opinion of what is happening until more is known.

For what it is worth to anyone, i still have every share, and will hold for what i believe (no timescales ) will be a successful outcome.

Neil

Evening all,

re the epigenetics,

Yes, i posted about that paper last year, noting the reference to prevention of cancer in addition to detection.

If i remember rightly it was around the time i posted regarding the patent, and the claims made therein, which explicitly referenced cancer treatment and drugs, when i raised the question as to the possibility of these being researched alongside our test as "complimentary"

One of the posts (i think it was in response to a query by Greend100) touched on the metastasis, and mir proteins and gave a simplistic explanation of the cytokines and inhibitors.

PS, if i see mention of programmed cell death ligand (commonly know as PLD-1_ or PLD-2,) i will be a bit more excited.

Jace, i think the patents you are referring to, are the lapsed ones that were being developed with Fujirebio, which were following a different path, so simply let them lapse.

Countingcards, not sure why you would think i have you filtered, but definitely not. I don't filter anyone, for the simple reason that i want to see what everyone's opinions are, whether they agree with mine or not. I don't just want to see positive only posts, as that doesn't challenge my research/opinion/interpretation of things.

i don't know everything, far from it, so it's good to see other opinions and questions.

Techtonic, yes i do have a mobile number, and they have mine. Obviously neither of which will be revealed.

If there is any doubt as to this, look back at posts at the start of Cizzle, when you will see a couple of posts where a poster asked why, - along the lines of "how come certain posters have mobile numbers and being given information"

re your mention as to me owning nigh on 3% of the company, i will not reveal the number of shares i own, but if you find a previous post i made, it refers specifically as to how / why you won't always see a TR1. Also, look at how many shares i advised i have bought just in the last month or so ;-)

PPS your comment about the positivity of a buy from someone outside "the group"

Speaking purely from my own point of view, i think i would be more positive with a buy from someone who tries to help other holders and shares their research, than a name on a TR1 that contributes nothing. - although i do take your point that i could be just talking my investment up. (NOT)

Neil

Sorry Techtonic, but i am going to have to pull you up on that post.

At no point have i said:-

1. That it doesn't matter if i lose the money.

2. Loss of money not meaning that much.

What i said was i could AFFORD to lose the money. That is not the same as what you have stated.

Any money i make is going to make sure my kids (even though they are adults) are taken care of when i am no longer around.

For context, i came from a very poor family that couldn't afford much.

I never had a holiday as i worked overtime and a second job so that my wife and kids could afford to go away like other kids.

i worked 2 jobs so my kids had presents to open at Christmas.

I volunteered for any job / overtime no matter how shyte it was.

I made sure they would never be in the position where i was as a kid.

I built my business up from nothing, starting in my dining room to a company with a turnover more than a million.

There's an old saying that today's youth know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

Trust me, i know and value every penny !

Neil

For a while there i thought i wasn't going to get it

Put a buy on for 900,000 shares, MMs dropped the price, but you buggers all bought into it.

Neil

Hi OAPK20

Pages 14 & 15 of second prospectus 2022

Page 33 gives you the patents status in various countries with expiry dates ranging from 2031 - 2036

Neil

In essence, we are both right but from different perspectives, and i would never disrespect Lovelyboy's opinion.

I would bring to your attention though, the issue of the FTO (Freedom to Operate) which is different to patent searches in that an FTO refers to whether it is commercially "safe" for a company to make or sell products in target countries without infringing existing third party patents or other intellectual property rights.

At the time of initial patent filing, it was unclear to Cizzle what the commercial format would be, and due to the complexity and costs involved, it was decided that the merits of conducting a FTO would only be considered after design, manufacture and components had been resolved.

The directors believe that it is reasonable to rely on the legal due diligence it has carried out to date.

"Furthermore, the group intends to contract out manufacture, and would seek protection within the supply agreement that the manufacturer will warrant that it's design and product will not infringe third party intellectual property.

The group is not aware of any claims of infringement related to it's intellectual property, or potential product designs.

Since the core patents have now been granted and published, and no oppositions or relevant prior art have prevented validity of the patents, it provides comfort that third parties will not provide subsequent oppositions which in any event are time limited and now likely to have expired."

Neil

Evening OAPK20,

My opinion only, but personally i think there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that CIZ will wait for grant of the patent, for a number of reasons:

The patent is only for the claim of use of a fibrinogen capture agent and not the previous claims submitted in application for the protection of the use of the technology as a whole.

The patent is not for the physical manufacture of the kit.

If Ciz waited for grant on patents every time they made an application, we would be YEARS away from a product, as effectively, we would have to start over every time we made an improvement/change in the kit.

If we had waited, then we would not have spent the amount of money we have already spent on development of the kit.

You don't spend that amount of money on a patent without knowing the end product would be manufactured. The patent is protection of the intellectual property of that invention.

You don't sign marketing agreements with companies in the hope that you may get a patent.

I have personally submitted a patent application on a piece of equipment that i developed in my company. The equipment was manufactured long before the application, as i needed to know that what i was making was fit for purpose, met the technical requirements of my particular industry, met safety requirements, and a number of other industry specific requirements. Without giving too much away, my company supplies these items to one of the biggest blue chip companies in the UK. The company has interests in UK and USA, and they are MORE THAN £10,000 EACH

This is my reasoning behind the first line of this post.

Hope this put your concerns to rest.

Neil

Techtonic,

Sorry but this reply is likely to be a long one....

The references to Clinical trials can be confusing. We have already conducted numerous clinical trials on our technology, hence we know it works. I posted some time back (a year or more) about trials having taken place. This is where references have been made to utilising retrospective data on our application as an LDT. This retrospective data has to be validated on the JESS platform

In respect of this mention of clinical trials, it is meant as being able to put the test into the market. In doing so, it is not just a case of a trial, and that's it, it has a lifetime cycle.

It will be done in exactly the same way that Galleri is doing in the NHS. i.e although they supplying to NHS, it is still a clinical trial. - No different to us, so i think you are reading it from the wrong perspective.

Patent - no, it does not in any way progressing. The patent simply protects our product from infringement by others.

Can't see why it won't be granted, but it does happen. In our case, we already have previosu patents granted worldwide. This is a technical extension of those patents.

Yes, there is nothing to stop us moving on whilst the patent is pending. Hence why we have got so far while it is pending.

Patent re commercialization - we don't need to wait for the patent to commercialize, and no major jeopardy as we have all the previous patents on the technology.

Near term - My opinion is Allan expected to be giving news out before now, and he himself has said in interviews "very near future" My opinion is still that something will be announce by end March.

Drip feeding information - again goes back to comments by Allan about only putting out SIGNIFICANT news - there will always be traders happy with a 10% rise, and sell into it. The least number of time we get a mini spike, the better. The ones to reward are the shareholders that support the company long term, not someone in today for a quick £100 or so.

Your last line feeds back into the first answer. Clinical trials is an ongoing process.

Nothing in there that i have any concerns about.

Hope this helps.

Nei

Morning OAPK20

The application is definitely priority status.

regarding date of grant, it's hard to state any specific date with any application, as a patent is granted (- mainly - ) subject to the claims it contains, and any challenges to those claims. Those challenges being from other parties that may be looking at similar implementation of their product.

Since this patent is specifically focused on the use of a fibrinogen agent to capture the CIZ1B protein, i don't foresee many, if any, challenges, as it is so specific in it's boundaries. i.e. specifically with CIZ1B, and not just a general unnamed protein, where there would be grounds for a challenge, as the claim is too loose to be included.

So in answer to your question, honest opinion, is it SHOULD be around March time, but there may be other factors involved.

Neil

Evening Techtonic

Confidence is high. Every day that passes is another day nearer to long awaited news

There seems to be a number of events which are significant in their own rights, that are just building up -

LDT progress, readiness for clinical trials, commercialization, "the next product", LFT development, etc are just ones that we know about.

The question is, as they are all backing up, will it be a number of smaller RNS's, or one blockbuster?

We know Allan will not issue RNS's unless there is something significant to tell the market, but either way, there has got to be a point in the very near timeframe where the gates open, and news flow follows.

Neil

Hi OAKP20

Yes it is priority application as it is basically an extension to previous patents already granted in respect of the technology.

The date is correct as you surmised.

It doesn't rely on any commercialization or approvals etc, as the patent is granted on how the technology CIZ have developed is implemented. Hence why previous patents have been granted in the absence of the test kit.

Neil