Member Info for potnak

As I expected. There is something they are not telling us. I dont suppose they ever will. Just another wait when p2a should have been starting this year. Same old, same old, ham tomorrow SAR. 20p is the new baseline, until new buyers see value higher than that. The company, at this time, doesn't.

Yep, Aber. Nervous and excited for tomorrow. I still think there is something we don't know and the SP will go down before it can rise again. Get tomorrow out of the way and we should have a clear road map and timescales.

My point is. If they knew they needed to do the extended tox study, wouldn't they have given themselves more time to do 2a?

March half year statement. Scroll down to chairman's statement.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/half-year-report-6wecgpee3aqayi8.html.

I will, thankyou.

Oof, Basil. It's the hope that kills you. Ha ha.

Laid out like that, it doesn't look great.

Hi PC. In March SP said (via RNS) end

'we endeavour to be in a position to commence a Phase 2a study in psoriasis patients before the of 2024"

They knew the timescales for data readout and they would know how long a tox study would take so why would they put something out that was impossble to deliver on time? I dont think they anticipated this tox study so something changed. Whether data from 1a or a requirement from a prospective partners, possibly both.

Like I said, not nessesarily bad news but not good either.

I don't nessesarily believe it's bad news. Maybe a curve ball they weren't expecting. The way they are indicating parts of the trial a success but not shouting about it is a red flag that there is something they havnt told us (yet). The 27% discounted raise is another. We'll know more on Tues.

I think the tox study is a fly in the ointment. Not anticipated but now nessesary. If it was needed, we'd know before now. Hard to put a positive spin on something when you know something is lurking in the shadows. If it was good news they would have RNS'd it and raised on the back of the inevitable rise. I think, they will spin the added value bit and ignore the reasons why.

Also agree with others here. No point asking questions for something in the past. We need to nail. Parker and the board down to the future. How and when are we going to get where we need to be.

Sareum missing deadlines and changing strategy used to be a bit of a joke here. "tut, eyeroll, typical SAR" sort of thing. That joke and attitude has worn thin now. It's been a long time. Either get on with it or kill it off.

That should have said wouldn't have RNS'd trials to start in 2024

Enki. They weren't needed. The board woukd have RBD's trails to start in 2024 if they'd known. The extrned tox studies are needed at some point but as far as I know, not for 1b or 2a. My guess is, either p1a threw up something that needs dome clarification or a potential partner, wants further proof of safety and/or a distinction from the black box issues with first gen TYK2. I'm not sure we'll get told the true reason as the board will spin it in terms of 'adding value' to the compounds.

IMO, the sp us now linked to how long these studies will take and long will the data take to be published. If it isn't what the market wants to hear, the sp will drop to the placing price, and maybe lower over the coming months. I dont envy the board at this point.

Don't use my example, I just submitted it

An example would be.

Can you provide a detailed explanation of the factors that led to the decision to extend toxicity studies and pivot away from a 1b trial? Additionally, could you outline the decision-making process involved, including the key stakeholders who were consulted and the rationale behind their recommendations?

AI is your friend

I think some well written question that can be uploaded. Not easy, but don't ask for anything that could be price sensitive or not currently in the public domain. Don't ask anything that has a yes or no answer. The board, as do most boards, tend to wriggle out of a answering question Because we don't asked the correct question. Not being patronising here, it's really difficult. We won't get the final results RNS until a few hours before the presentation so it will be difficult to get something together in time. Parker is a master at this sort of stuff, he also like hint at stuff that plainly isn't real. "for a queue" anyone? Or JR "the world will know". I will be on Pembrokeshire so may not have a signal and km certainly not waisting an afternoon sitting in my cottage. I will read the RNS and update over breakfast though. See if I can use AI to creat some questions. Ha ha

Yes, dear, as far as I understand the extended tox studies need to be done before the compound can be approved. Most choose to do it after efficacy data, this saves doing a P3 if efficacy doesn't meet primary endpoint. I guess doing it this way, we skip a big hurdle but I takes away any chance of shareholders taking some profit on the back off good efficacy data. It also takes away the company's options for raising on higher share pricing. I've no idea really and I'm not sure we will get the full story next either.

It's a weird pivot. Both 1B and 2A efficacy trials and data would have given the sp a lift, even with the placements needed to run them. Doing tox first is jumping stratght to the killer question. I can't think of any other bio I've known, that have done it this way. e.g. Before they know it works in psoriasis! If 1801 fails this extended study. Thats 1801 and 02 finished before we can all get excited and profit from the positive data. Seems risky so I hope they know what they are doing.

Yep.

You didn't request a reasoned argument. You questioned his wisdom by asking what he would have done in a made up scenario. It's your question, FTC doesn't need to answer. If he did, the answer would then be used to further discredit him.

They don't owe you an answer, Laz. It's not hard to grasp. If you want a discussion, ask better questions. Don't point out what could have happened in the hope they will stop posting.

You're doing the thing again Laz. Strawman fallacy. Usually used in conjunction with Gaslighting. You asked a question for he answer the FTC doesn't need. Done to discredit his opinions. I supported the consolidation BTW. Plenty didn't.