Member Info for PhilBanks

Well said shareminator, I was about to write something very similar in response to him. People who are saying 'it's just the same as flu' are either deluded or ignorant. Based on the early data, covid-19 is around 10 to 20 times more deadly than flu, and around twice as transmissible.

If you're young, then health wise it's probably not a huge concern. However, if you're old then it is a major concern. Fortunately I'm in the former category, but like virtually everyone I have relatives in the latter category.

In terms of economics, we're all in trouble. I'm just hoping that investing in precious metals and miners will help mitigate any losses.

I mentioned a few weeks ago that we could be more exposed to Coronavirus sell off hysteria due to our links to China with fosun, unfortunately. I liquidated half of all my holdings at the start of last week, wish I'd just sold everything now. Going to get worse before it gets better imo.

Looking at the trades, the MMs somehow deemed it suitable to drop the share price almost 10% on a single £1000 trade. Unless there's some serious after hours transactions that come through.

Why has the a***hole just dropped out of this?

I think they would need further partnerships realsitically. Perhaps only one more though.

Rene could announce a ready to market one tablet cure for coronavirus and the share price would spike 10% in the morning and then finish slightly down.

Olav has previously addressed this in a presentation, where he speculated something along the lines of that it could be related to the untreated eye having undergo less stress and workload due to the improvement in the treated eye. But they weren't entirely sure. This is perhaps demonstrated in the gradual improvement in visual acuity in untreated eye from months 1 to 6 (based on latest data released), lagging behind the more rapid improvement seen in the treated eye.

Seems a sensible approach, giving Accys the opportunity to cut out the middle man and maximise profits by selling more directly to the consumer. The sort of approach that will decrease the time it takes to start realising meaningful profits.

We benefit from a couple of larger insitutional holdings that should somewhat protect us from a cheap takeover. But I do agree with your sentiment, it's highly frustrating. The more I look at the results published this morning, the more encouraged I am. It's beyond anything else that has been achieved in this field to date, the share price is insanely low all things considered. Would be good to see some director buys at these levels as well.

Finally, does anyone have opinions to offer on this from the RNS:

"The Company has submitted a protocol amendment to the US FDA to expand the Phase 1/2a study to treat up to a further nine patients in the Phase 2a segment of the study with a dose of two million hRPC cells, which compares with the dose of one million cells used in the study thus far. The amended clinical trial protocol also allows for a greater range of pre-treatment baseline visual acuity in patients and includes changes that enhance the ability to use microperimetry testing to measure and detect changes in retinal sensitivity in patients treated.

The Company and its clinical advisers believe that this protocol amendment will enable the efficacy signal observed in the study thus far to be both better delineated and magnified when demonstrated in a larger and more closely defined group of RP patients."

Is the intention therefore to focus the higher 2 million cell dose on a certain type of patient? i.e. those with lower visual acuity? Microperimetry test assesses 'the quantity of light perceived in specific parts of the retina in people who have lost the ability to fixate on an object or light source'. Which to me implies that it relates to patients that perhaps wouldn't be able to read anything on the ETDRS chart? Higher dose for those with a greater level of degeneration of the retinal cells perhaps?

Also worth reiterating that Luxturna (developed by Sparks Therapeutics which was subsequently sold for $4bn) found no statistically significant improvement in visual acuity across its phase 3 programme, when comparing treated patients to the control group.

During the course of the phase 3 programme they instead focused their secondary end points on bilateral multi-luminance mobility testing and full-field light sensitivity
threshold testing. These tests are still important, but not as meaningful as improvements in visual acuity.

Finally, luxturna treats only one defective gene (ie very small market), where is hrpc is non gene specific, therefore treats a potentially much larger population. If the results from this phase 2a study can be anywhere near replicated as part of a definitive study, then it's difficult to see why rene would not be valued at a similar or greater level than Sparks Therapeutics was.

Does look good. Also thanks grizzly for posting that video over the weekend - always interesting to see the actual human impact these treatments can have, rather than just looking at positive numbers.

Encouraging report.

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/modular-construction-news/timber-frame-market-2020/71667/

You wouldn't have access to the full article by any chance?

Dunno, but this signals the beginning of the end of the woodford saga thankfully.

I expect Hull plant to now be commissioned without any further issues. Pretty absurd turn of events in the first place unfortunately. Once that is up and running, along with the 4th reactor in Arnhem (not sure what the actual timetable for that is? A year or two?) then the nucleus of the business will be very strong indeed. Any licencing deals in Asia or US will be a cherry on top. Certainly seems to be some strong interest, and why not?

Might be because of Rene's links to China and the coronavirus outbreak. Obviously we have licencing agreement with Fosun, and the stroke drug is now being trialled over there as well. Any company remotely associated with China is getting hammered at the moment, so presumably we are once again in the wrong place at the wrong time!

On what basis do you think the execution risk is quite large? The way I see it is they have a level of demand that they have not been able to keep up with for years, a proven product, significant funds that have just been raised, and a large facility that is coming on line this year which will boost output and also improve margins (as they won't be having to waste as much high value Accoya to supplement Tricoya production.

The overseas joint ventures have elements of risk (and opportunity) of course, but the core business looks extremely sound.

That article is date June 2019, so doubt it's completely relevant to whatever is causing the current rise.

A cheap takeover would be a catastrophe. Can't see investors approving any silly low ball offers though. Think anyone who is invested here understand the potential.... hopefully.

I'm newly on board, so hopefully the share price has some distance to go yet. Seems a fundamentally sound company though.