Member Info for PrivateRyan

That ll confuse a few people on this b b though I know what you are saying ! As a non techie I just find it hard to believe there isn’t sufficient evidence knocking around that there is no issue with the liver. Maybe it was too obvious that it simply wasn’t stated. Anyhow I look forward to the churchillian conference call. Step up to the mark graham and show what you are made of!

Will it be the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning ?! Life does have a way of surprising everyone.... it’s only money fellers

If there was such a partner waiting in the wings for approval and many thought there was(due to non recruitment of sales force) , the placing if nec may be with that party as part of overall arrangement albeit a late rejig?? Just a thought So that instead of upfront payment for a licence they take a share of the company? Mtfb seem reasonably confident to be able to replace the 7.5 m ? And an interesting word re use of capital. Ie aggressively. Doesn’t sound too apprehensive? Wishful thinking maybe but they have had a couple of days to consult with iis and potential partners I added a few more. High level I think it won’t fail. The risk is in how much existing shareholders gain from that

Ps it mentions the required package of info in there !

extract from link below-havent seen anyone post this yet- quite recent guidance dec 2018

FDA has committed to providing a scheduled date for 90 percent of post-CRL meetings within
10 calendar days10 of receipt11 of a written request.12 FDA has further committed to conducting
90 percent of post-CRL meetings held on an FDA-proposed date within 30 days of receipt of a
written request.13 In the event FDA proposes a post-CRL meeting date within 30 days of receipt
of a written request, but the meeting is ultimately scheduled outside of the 30-day window at the
applicant’s request, FDA will consider its goal of conducting the meeting within 30 days of
receipt of a written request met.

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM580175.pdf

the meeting though is restricted in scope to clarify fda deficiencies assertions not refute them

My feeling on Hurricane is that they wanted to restrict exposure and we were worried that they could claim an event of default so did this as a precaution(see 2017 financials where we failed to send appropriate documentation).Equally I doubt they would have done this unless they were confident of other funds being available in whatever form....

I am plesed we will ge the conference call- sooner the better.

And my perception is that the long term well researched holders have maintained their holdings. I have added We have not lost a bean at this stage so we need no sympathy And in my view we are not likely to. The fat lady has not sung .... Always an optimist though !

Agreed They have said in interims last September that this fund raise was coming They do not say it is as a result of the crl. But as I indicated a while back the delay may mean that the hurricane funding may not be available as expected of 5m dollars so they are required to raise the capital from a balance sheet insolvency perspective. Too much panic. We don’t know. Let’s wait and see

Good point! Memory fades with age. Maybe he was a baby expert? Past caring. Lol Beam me up

Doctor spok made hobnail boots I think ! A long time ago in a galaxy far far away! Ie the seventies

I think he means mr Spock from Star Trek An unemotional brainbox and science officer As opposed to the risk taking and dashing capn kirk. Fascinating

I see. Thanks v m All a bit illogical captain! And with the s price plummeting to disastrous levels maybe these are exceptional times. But I know from my tax background you try not to upset the government officials Cheers and will sign off now. Nothing to add . Exhausted from my petch debate lol I am gonna hold until we have knowledge Cheers

I crossed with a few more learned people. I was an accountant. Enuff said! Will shut up.

I crossed with ivy but I think he says he doesn’t know either. But why can’t mtfb publish the crl or more importantly the specific extract dealing with this issue so I’vy etc can figure it out. Poor show in my view to leave it as it was rnsed yesterday which seems to me to be a holding rns in shock!

Haven’t any idea. Nor has anyone else. But it looks like liver toxicity was addressed specifically in the tests so it seems to me it must be a question of leading the fda to the proof .... and no need for further tests with a bit of luck and animis secundis

I think it’s where the para starts liver function tests in assist .....

Evoking it is as far as I can see saying that they specifically addressed liver toxicity when they did the iclaprim trials as in the first arpida rounds it seemed to cause concern Perhaps a science bod can confirm?

What an excellent post. Surely it must be some kind of documentary or communication lapse Thanks very much

Hi Ian b. Isn’t it a complete response letter which must set out what their concerns are ? The meeting is to address what they need to resolve those concerns? And if we believe the info exists to deal with them without trials we can surely say that subject to an obvious caveat that it is subject to the meeting. ? I agree bullsshitting is not helpful but some kind of indication on Mtfb s view of the issue would calm nerves .... the rns looked like a holding one to me given the shock and surprise. I expected more But wtfdik. !

No Callisto nothing as yet. That said his last video was after the UK closing bell. I will be disappointed if he doesn’t appear to give some further flavour to what is going on. Ie is it a big issue or is it not . He was always quick to give the good news.......

Good man redbus