Member Info for neilin62

Hi Vincent Vega

Published early June and presented to American Society of Clinical Oncology on the 3rd.

(ironically, a week prior they incorrectly advised 400 people they had cancer, when they didn't)

An article was updated last night and is available on Red Whale website. Then click on the Pearls tab, and you will see it.

woodyjohn40, We don't need an MP on board. We are already in the preparation of the clinical trial and launch of our test to support the NHS.

Jace86, specificity wasn't bad to be fair, but that acts in an inverse relationship to the sensitivity. Sensitivity is the more important factor, as that is the one that states that you have cancer, so the higher this number, the higher the accuracy, and the lower the false negatives.

On the numbers being mentioned, 334 million Americans, 50% of who have medical insurance, so in round numbers, 115 million. Life insurance companies are now taking huge interest in early detection screening as it is seen to be a way of reducing their costs in later diagnosis cases. Some are even using the tests as "add ons" or "bonuses" to health plans and other workplace programs.

In the grand scheme of things, , i REALLY cannot see any downside to this company.

Neil

So the Galleri test currently being trialled by NHS -

Results from the SYMPLIFY study published in The Lancet Oncology on subjects suspected of having cancer, shows:

66.3% sensitivity - so of the 6000 subjects, it only detected cancer in 3,978 cases. WOW.

2,002 people had cancer and it didn't pick it up.

Sensitivity for stage 1 cancers was as low as 24.2% Even bigger WOW. I thought this test was supposed to be the bees knees?

Now i find that the "undisclosed cost" to the NHS of the Galleri test (1 million of should the results be to NHS expectations) is £390 per test!

£390 x 1 million is £390 million - That is more than the entire annual cost to the NHS of the COMBINED breast and bowel screening program!!!

Compare that to our test's claimed sensitivity, and suggested cost of $100

then add into the equation the issues with Grail's antitrust problems, the news item yesterday about record cancer cases, cancer detection targets being missed, calls for Government intervention in funding research, NHS must be absolutely screaming for our test to get to trial.

Neil

Allan does not put out RNS's just to give investors a warm feeling.

He puts them out on "significant news" which i fully support. It reduces the traders flipping shares for a few quid here and there on a speculative rise.

There will be some "significant news" coming on various fronts, and the sp will react accordingly.

The CDT shares are an unknown at the minute, as we don't know if we sold ALL of them, (and at what price) or SOME of them (again at what price) or kept hold of them.

He did say in a previous interview that he liked having the option of doing any of the above.

Neil

VincentVega

By no stretch of the imagination do i claim to have any affiliation with cell biology.

However, i can sometimes pick things up.

As you can see from the paragraph, there are a lot of terms that are beyond most peoples understanding. (me included)

As i understand it:

Put simply, the paragraph is a description of how genes /cells interact with each other .

Overexpression can be thought of as a switch. In Gene biology, this switch is a gene that will turn on a cytokine.

A cytokine is a protein that tells the immune system to go and attack what is thought of as the enemy. (cancerous cell in this instance). One problem with this is what is known as cytokine storm

You may recall Professor Whitty and Van Tam talking about this during the initial covid pandemic.

Cytokine storm is where the immune system completely overloads the body with immune cells, which cause further problems and is a vicious circle, of the body producing even more cytokines, and shuts down organs. (lungs in the case of covid - hence the number of people on ventilators) The key is inhibitors, or modulators, which will control or block the release of these cytokines.

All the numbers - mir-183-5p for example are the genes/proteins which were used in the particular experiment, in as much as ours is CIz1b.

The paragraph in question is not of any interest to me at least because the term "metastatic" refers to the stage of the cancer.

In this case it means that it is of such a stage that it has migrated from the original source to other organs in the body.

Typically stage 4. This is why there is reference to the liver, while the discussion is about breast cancer (BC) Main sites that breast cancer metastits occurs in, is the liver, and lung.

Which brings us back to why we have chosen breast cancer as the next test - because of it's association with lung cancer.

Neil

Evening all.

I apologise in advance if this ends up a long post as i am writing it from different sheets of notes.

I have been looking at the latest patent submitted 23/03/23, priority to USA US202302266327A1 Publication date 24/08/23 Status - Pending, to see if there are any clues to Bio-techne or others.

Couldn't find anything there, but under the particulars of the Patent, i did note a number of things.

i have been banging on for a while about developing our test to detect other cancers.

Particular 031 states:

"In particular, the cancer may be lung cancer"

Okay, no surprise there, as that is the basis on what the company is.

However, Particular 030 states:

" The cancer may be selected from lung, lymphoma, kidney, breast (we know that we are already currently developing a test for detection of breast cancer), liver, bladder, ovarian, or thyroid cancer" - so this supports my theory that we are looking at even more kits to detect a larger range of cancers, hence the reason we have engaged others to develop further antibodies.

The next few particulars are the ones that really struck me.

Particular 032 states:

"the present invention further relates to a method for treating a subject with cancer comprising administering to the subject , a cancer therapeutic wherein the subject has been identified as having cancer by the method of the invention"

Remember previous discussions regarding companion diagnostics / re-purposed drugs?

Particular 033 states:

"the current invention also provides an anticancer drug for use in treating cancer where the subject has been identified as having cancer by the method of the invention"

REALLY? i know what that suggests to me.

Particular 034 states:

"the current invention further provides an anti-cancer lung cancer drug for use in treating lung cancer wherein the subject has been identified as having lung cancer by the method of the invention"

Again.... REALLY?

We know that we are involved with Fairjourney, Corepath, Bio-Techne who in turn, are involved with drug manufacturers etc.

Now, given that we didn't even have a clue that we were working with Bio-Techne, let alone completed an evaluation programme, is it possible that we have found a company whose drug(s) will compliment our test? Just a theory, but make your own mind up.

Before posting this, i did seek a second opinion on what i was seeing / interpreting, and that person confirmed that they also understood it to be as i did.

Neil

Evening Greend100

Better than that, we have clinical validation available from 486 plasma samples from 4 independent sample sets in support of our retrospective data.

Still looking into the information i mentioned the other night, which i will post further on when i have my notes correlated.

It does appear to be quite something on the face of it, but i just want to be sure i am right in what i am interpreting before i put it up.

Neil

Jace

i think that there are a few typical reasons for the share price being where it is and the markets apparent missing the significance of this company, and one very big, and pertinent reason -

The obvious reasons are:

1. We are a pre-revenue company, so for all the predictions of a meteoric rise, it is just that at present. i.e. predictions, so the markets have no tangible way to determine where they think the true value should be. But, when commercialisation starts, and contracts are forthcoming, then i think we will start to see a massive difference.

2. We are currently at development stage of our product (s) so again, nothing concrete to base any valuation on.

3. The markets presently have a bit of a downer on pharma stocks generally.

But to me, the biggest obstacle is /was THERANOS and it's subsequent crash.

At the time, all based on unproven claims, the company attracted huge corporate and private investment to the point that it soon had a market cap of some $10 BILLION.

Concerns soon began to appear about the claims about the claimed technology, which proved to be false, and resulted in a spectacular fail with the CEO and the President being jailed for fraud.

It seems to me that the markets are understandably very wary of companies particularly in the bio sector, where unproven technology is the issue.

The sooner our test is successfully launched, the sooner these fears will be put to rest. Lets see how much you will have to pay for the shares then!

All in my opinion.

(PS found something else that i think could be significant, but need to look further into as well)

Neil

Some interesting bullet points from Institute of Cancer Research position statement:

"Accessing biomarker tests on the NHS"

* We believe that it should become standard within the NHS to perform molecular profiling of all cancers. We need a broad expansion of biomarker testing for people with cancer.

*I .....Companion diagnostic tests for drugs.....ideally, diagnostic tests would be made available on the NHS in England even before the associated drug has gained approval. We believe that tests could be categorised as "essential " or "desirable".

Tests that are verifiable and proven to work in a clinical setting would be categorised as "essential".

* We believe that it is essential that NHS institutions should be able to use genetic tests that have been through rigorous in house validation and quality control WITHOUT REQUIRING A CE OR UKCA MARK

Now that last one is really interesting in view of the fact we are engaging in the market launch and preparation of clinical trial to support the NHS.

Neil

I don't wish to pee on anyone's strawberries, but the new antibody is nothing to do with us.

This is a CIZ1 polyclonal antibody.

CIZ1 is a primary antibody - a basic building block if you like.

Our Patent is for the discovery of a variant of CIZ1, monoclonal antibody,which in this case is the splicing of exome 14 which gives us CIZ1-b

There are lots of antibody suppliers that supply CIZ1 antibodies, but you will find not one of them are advertising CIZ1-b, and that is because they can't.

Cizzle bio-technology own the intellectual property rights.

Hope this hasn't dampened enthusiasm, but i think it is only right to make sure we are all given the right information. This does not however, detract from where this company is going in my opinion.

Neil

News from USA 21 hours ago is that New York is in the final stage of implementing into law, requirement for biomarker testing for cancer detection.

Final stage is for Governor Kathy Hochul to sign Senate Bill 1196a/Assembly Bill 1673a into law.

This bill will require all state regulated health plans in New York including Medicaid, to cover comprehensive biomarker testing for millions of residents.

Millions - and that's just in the state of New York.

Medicare should be very interested in this since a study shows that patients that received broad panel biomarker testing and subsequent targeted treatment saved around $8,500 a MONTH in total care cost compared to those receiving narrow panel biomarker testing.

Something i posted previously about our biomarker being used for targeted treatment - i knew it was of importance alongside the actual diagnostic part of the test, but i didn't quite realise just HOW MUCH the importance this part of the

CIZ1b story is.

Once a patient has been diagnosed with cancer, that isn't the end of the test. i.e it's not just a one time thing. As well as being invaluable in developing and identifying drug / therapy treatments targeted at specific cancers, apparently, it is just as important to carry out repeat tests during treatment in order to observe any changes in the cancer, or resistance to treatment, so adjustments can be made accordingly.

So repeat revenue stream in addition to the initial test.

Neil

Yes but that is the whole point - detect it at such an early stage, that surgical intervention is not necessary.

Treat it with targeted therapy/drugs.

Neil

From last week's tweet "this improves reliability and sensitivity through precision sample handling , effectively delivering both size analysis and a quantitative result"

I note that Bio=techne also supply a fully automated sample pipetting robotic system known as ASSIST PLUS which is used in conjunction with JESS that gives "foolproof liquid handling, ensuring precision and accuracy"

I wonder if this will form part of the test. Anything that gives our test more accurate and sensitivity results has to be a benefit.

Fairly recently i responded to one of Widglide's posts, asking him if he understood the relevence of the role Artificial Intelligence or Bio- Luminence would have.

Let me put a bit of context to that question.....

One of the benefits of JESS is the module that allows multiplexing of samples, giving the ability to reproduce results in bio-luminence data.

For those that are unaware this is a way of detecting the biomarker and displaying it as a pattern (there are numerous examples of this in Cizzle's / Dawn Coverley's research)

To put it very, very simply, as an analogy, it is like the old colour blindness tests where you were presented with a picture of a page of coloured dots, and in this picture, there would be a number in slightly different coloured dots that indicated a number or a dolphin for example.

Sometimes you could see them easily, but other times, they were hard to distinguish.

Being able to detect these patterns earlier, makes our test more accurate.

Now, just imagine if we combine this aspect of the test with Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning.

Machine learning means that thousands upon thousands of samples can be scanned, and the algorithm will start to learn what to look out for. The more it learns the tell tale signs, the earlier it will be able to detect them. Not only that, but it will be able to detect earlier, and smaller stage of cancers than could EVER be detected by humans, again making the test far more accurate.

The "Gold standard" of cancer detection is currently CT scan.

2 problems problems with CT scans is

1. The number of false positives is still too high.

2. The cancer has to have developed to a size that is able to be detected in the first place.

I can see the day coming where CT scanning is no longer considered the Gold standard.

Neil

And that JESS machine we are using as our platform is one SERIOUSLY special bit of kit!

Neil

Greend100,

And don't forget - they recently announced they now have the ability to provide lateral flow assay development.

I wonder who is accelerating their Lateral Flow test development?

Oh yes, it's us! :-)

Neil

Hi Brondy,

Along those lines yes.

Since you have put it out there, my theory is this:

We have expanded the range of our Biomarker library which allows detection of other types / sub categories of cancers. This being compatible with Bio-techne's platform.

The resulting success of our Biomarkers in conjunction with their machine, gives both parties a higher credence, with respect to each others product, and will be able to offer the full package.

Bio-Techne are a global supplier, and able to get this out across the world, so why wouldn't they want at least a piece of the action?

The way i think it will work - and i stress it is only my opinion based on how they seem to make acquisitions - is that they will look to invest an amount into CIZ, and base it on the way they are looking to acquire Wilson Wolf Manufacturing.

They will invest based on setting a revenue return of X amount in a 12 month financial period for a %age of the company, and subject to achieving those goals, an agreement giving them the right to acquire the company for XX amount.

In WWM's case, they invested $55m for 20%, with the right to acquire the remaining 80% for $1 billion.

Only a thought, but one worth considering?

Neil

The 200k buy was me again.

Widglide can slate me all he wants for dates that i have absolutely no control over, but i 100% believe in what i know, so my position is just getting larger. I have only ever posted entirely honestly in my thoughts and what i have picked up.

Interesting that you still (presumably) hold your shares, You said previously "why would i sell at such a large loss?" Well if you are 100% confident CIZ is a scam, then getting a small amount back is better than zero surely?

Or are you still holding thinking "what if Neilin is right though?"

For what it's worth, i have asked if Allan can give an interview (stockbox / Directors talk) to update us on recent events - Dawn's Biomarker conference, China visit, USA, and any further news on Bio-Techne. Hopefully soon.

On Bio-Techne, i am of the opinion that further developments with them will be forthcoming, and i have one particular scenario that i could see happening in the future.

Neil

You have got to be joking?

Do you even know who these people are?

Have you seen their credentials?

They are so confident, that they will take shares instead of salary because they know full well that the shares will be worth far more than the equivalent in salary.

Neil

If anyone has spare time, take a look at Bio-Techne's 2023 investor day presentation.

Just look at the acquisitions they have made in building this company., and who they are involved with.

Their strategy -

Entering new categories through M&A

IDENTIFY fast growing and/or game changing technologies that can scale

INTEGRATE acquisitions that fill product or technology gaps

STRENGTHEN diagnostic and analytical capabilities that leverage our consumables portfolio

Now chasing an addressable market of $27 Billion

In addition to their global presence, they have:

Abingdon UK - Sales office and demo site

Bristol UK - Manufacturing planr and R&D

Langley UK - Regional distribution

Dublin Ireland - Regional distribution

Beijing China - Sales office

Ghangzhou China - Sales office

Shanghai China - Manufacturing plant, R&D, Sales office, Regional distribution, Demo site

I find the mention of Bristol and Shanghai sites interesting in that both have manufacturing plants, and we have interests in both.

Especially since BioTechne now advertise that they are now capable of Lateral Flow assay development ! Very interesting given our accelerated program to develop LFA's. Couls they be our partner?

Loads of interesting stuff in there.

Neil

500k just added a few more

Neil

Hi VincentVega

Numerous clinical trials have already been carried out using Western Blot technique, which was the precursor of our test, that proved the initial concept of the test. I also found that trials had also been carried out on an earlier version of an ELISA sandwich assay, which i posted on here (can't remember the date offhand, but it is there if you look back, but 2nd May2022 is one of them)

Western Blot technique is not considered suitable for the high throughput, low cost type of test that is required in hospital environment, but Elisa Sandwich is. This is why we need to go through clinical trials on the new platform....to prove accuracy, consistency, repeatability etc.

Because we have previously carried out trials using Western Blot, this evidence is normally put forward as retrospective data in support of our test and goes a long way to gain accreditation.

It gets a bit more complicated than that because there are also "predicates" whereby if a test is "substantially similar" to other products then there are less stringent requirements. (7th April)

In answer to OAPK20 questions, 1. No, I haven't paid for the licence,

2. I couldn't possibly use another payee's account as that would breach the single user agreement. (although that wouldn't stop them from speaking about the contents)

Just so no-one is under any illusion, i have said previously, i am not an insider.

Neil