Member Info for PCS1954

Hi HBD, yes there’s a lot we need, but, not sure we will get it this week - hopefully, SRA737 is still active in the background - not sure, if TM is attending Vienna Bio in November but if he is “God knows what he will have in the suitcase”.

Not sure a CRO can advise during a test, as it’s supposed to be impartial and it’s my main reason that we weren’t advised by a CRO - beginning to wonder if we’re being guiding along and someone keeps changing the goalposts - how AI/CNS suddenly came out the blue on restricted cash resources, the fact we can afford another Toxicity Study if that is the case - usual Sareum, more questions than answers!!

@ Carter, I’m second generation Irish (Sweeney) so here’s hoping.

Anyway, time for a glass of Timothy Taylor’s Landlord - cheers!

GLA

I’m still intrigued by “originally scoped” in the RNS, hopefully, some explanation soon.

As an aside, SOG I note you post in your reply to AMKD yesterday evening that the 16 week study stops in its closing weeks - perhaps I didn’t post drivel after all!!

Anyway back to leaf collecting, and compost making - rather apt after this week!

GLA

My thoughts too Bryn - that’s why I’m keen to hear an update from JR.

Anyway enough pondering, enjoy your Sunday to all.

GLA

Thanks for sharing Num4.

GLA

Surprised JR didn’t comment in RNS and no one has picked up on this - as per RNS

“Despite this set back, the Company anticipates being able to complete the full toxicology study, as originally scoped, with its existing cash resources.”

“ originally scoped” read on “ talking to partners”sounds like we have been guided to deviate from the Toxicity Study and all approved comments by Nomad!!

Time will tell, hopefully, positively very soon!

GLA

Given the only certain statement in the RNS was the study will be closed and on information in the public domain (ir@Sareum email) suggest the toxicity studies were in the closing weeks, I’m willing to wait for the BoD to communicate - there are a couple of foibles in the RNS statement and SP’s comment to note, that will become a relevance once the above situation is sorted.

Have a good evening.

GLA

Agree potnak, for me it’s either 1. the manufacture and supply of compound 1801 (RNS appears to suggest unlikely) 2. The CRO has failed in providing “sanitised” facilities (unlikely it’s their day job) or 3. Contamination in the administration- most likely in my opinion ( and that is all it is an opinion).

I note TM keeps being mentioned with past comments, he has since “stepped down” so I imagine JR is leading the rectification process, which will have timelines, nothing SP can say until JR provides update.

As you say all compelling posts, but, I’d rather hear the BoD’s take as frustrating as the wait is.

Meanwhile, let’s hope something is going on with STA737!

@Hopkirk thanks for sharing your AI post 🤞

GLA

Evening potnak

A good post, however, I would say SP can only deliver what the “Scientists” feed him - I imagine JR is fully on the case, TM in his transitional role who knows - a repetitive ending to many a post “time will tell”

GLA

Hi potnak & HBD

Thanks for replies and appreciate all seems “tight” on dates, I’m giving leeway for recording, editing etc. so guess mid Sept for Edison - how quick do CRO’s raise and action concerns- oh to be a fly on the wall in the Sareum boardroom this morning and yes the cloakroom is the only leaks I would envisage from the BoD!

Good day to you both.

It would be extremely naive of the BoD to leak such information- many other culprits from RNS writers, brokers etc, not denying someone got the heads up - but, definitely not by the BoD, many a rascal in the “City”.

Going back to my other “drivel”, given that SP confirmed via IR@Sareum email 14/06 (thanks jonneo) that study had commenced, latest completion should have been 03/10, so as I surmised over the weekend, all seems to have happened in the closing weeks of the study.

For the record, I believe (just my opinion) that the Edison Report was filmed before they knew of “problem”.

Be good to hear from the BoD on the issues at the earliest, but, that will be determined by others imo.

GLA

Well said CB, BoD’s call now on all things Sareum.

GLA

Hello Andy

Trust you’re well, 2 and a half years on and a little deja vu in the post - fancy a beer sometime?

GLA

Tend to agree with that opinion HBD, until we hear from the BOD and hopefully as stressed by many on here full clarity needs to be given, there’s not much we can do!

I would like to think a positive outcome and also a wake up call on how the BoD perceive to communicate with their shareholders - I’ve never comprehended TM’s dismissive “didn’t believe we needed to tell you” when I asked why they didn’t confirm SRA737 data when returned was in order at the ‘22 AGM - I hoping under SP that betterment will be achieved in that facet of the business!

GLA

@ Jonneo

Appreciate your response, which I believe you may have posted as I had such information in my mind when I said “ my understanding” - no need for me to say anymore other than I try not to post “drivel” just an honest opinion where I can.

Thanks again!

GLA

Morning SOG

Thank you for the “lecture” - if you took the time to read my post properly you will note I said I would like “to know” the actual start of the study and then made an assumption!!

Then low and below, you then make your “guess”-perhaps you can confirm the start of the study and that it means dosing commences on that day or may be they start unpacking and put their PPE on!!

Perhaps dosing started last week - can you confirm it didn’t?

You provide some great posts but at the same time might do well to respect others have opinions as well.

Fact - we are in a worrying place and I would prefer to hear from the BoD, if that’s okay with you!

Have a good day

GLA

Hi Smart

By the wording of RNS yes, but, the ambiguity lies that they do not know the reasoning and have given no timeline - they appear confident in resolving and that 1801 is not the issue - however, fact is the study has ceased 1 maybe 2 weeks from completion and transparency is an absolute must to gain market confidence - I think they will, otherwise, their own credibility will be questioned not only by us, but, potential market “partners” too!

Even though a “Science” issue, I’m backing SP once facts are known to turn it around on the “Commercial” side.

GLA

Many ruminations on the bb today, for me the BoD have had to RNS the news, albeit, without knowing the full reasoning themselves- hopefully, that will be resolved at speed, explained in full to clarify and the Toxicity Studies resurrected.

I would be interested to know if SP is reading the bb (fully get if he isn’t) when the 16 week study actually commenced as my understanding was that it was June - even if Monday 30th June, this week would have been Week 15!

For once, the Sareum BoD (that includes TM and JR) need to speak transparently on what has happened, how it will be resolved and financed - no more, drip feeding, dangling carrots a clear business model pathway that will give betterment to all shareholders.

Long drive home tomorrow, so good weekend all.

GLA

Gunner exactly!!

GLA

Well credit where credit’s due - SP certainly does keep the bb socially active 😉

Silver/Gunner look forward to sharing a catch up and coffee with you both and a few others!

GLA

Re listening to JR again, I don’t think they had any option other than to pursue at least with AI given what they had with our compounds - SP made very clear that the study with AI had an end game and thereafter, if proven to be good news, then next stage is a separate “objective” - on reflection a good commercial decision imo, may even had been prompted (contributed in part) by those we are (allegedly) talking to, after all no commercial details alluded to by SP - just a thought on my behalf!

Putting that to one side, other compounds are as is, and in the cycle of the BoD’s updates, hopefully, as I’ve said earlier the October statement will be a positive and robust update from SP!

Have a good evening all.

GLA