Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Porky - neither Nick or myself have bought any VAL shares since the placing, and you have insinuated that we've "propped up" the SP; two or three times now, in the last couple of weeks.

I gave you a *relatively* free pass on the "loads of fledgling biotechs are trading below cash" statement. But I won't do it twice. Think before you type, son.

I've screenshot it btw, so you don't need to resend. Although in the interim, these are probably fairly bob on:
1. Because they're a start up, they've had no money.
2. I doubt it, as the deal will go through if the money lands, and if the money doesn't land, there won't be anything to pay with.
3. There's several, but one of the main ones is end of 2020's; hence why the product will more than likely be reformulated and repatented, before TXs big clinical trial.
4. Contingency plan is to give back to CRUK, or bring in house for reformulating, repatenting, and remarketing here. Cost and time implications obviously. Maybe a million quid and 1.5 years. But yes, it is doable.
5. As above.

Southern; when I'm collating questions, I will let everyone know. But I can't check every post, on every BB, outside these windows, in case someone posts a question. Any decent ones I'll ask, if people don't want to ask for themselves, which I'll assume you don't.

Fair enough Porky, and I feel for all 4D and SNG investors. It's been tough, and we should want the whole sector to do well; I certainly do. But - genuine question. You said that "several fledgling biotechs are trading below cash". I'm genuinely interested as to which ones, as these are my favourite prospective buys. I just want to piggy back on your knowledge, to add to my list. Who's on your list?

Porkster - who's valued at less than their MCap in terms of fledgling bio's (and valued by whom)?; or do you mean trading below cash? Wasn't sure, but saw you make the point twice now. Interested in either. Thanks.

I agree. The issue is that this isn't a platitude; it's something that I pushed for, and something that many larger holders have been pushing for.

It's easier for them to say screw you, stop all comms, go off to other jobs, and leave us to find replacements.

Maybe this is what many want. At this stage, I think that would be a mistake, personally.

I'm already having conversations with the team about strategy, and our views, at length.

Taking one day off and then going for the throat again is not helping. If everyone wants to do that, fine, but at least give it a few weeks, rather that a few hours FFS.

"You don't have to tell me about the management shortfalls in the above; how things should've been stewarded better; the resultant loss of confidence; and the loss of credibility".

My post avoided culpability? Well OK.

Here's the likely scenario:

SP was 25-30p; the deal was expected to then raise the SP, when we could then issue shares, at a premium, for either an acquisition, or for projects. A proven strategy of revenue generation.

The deal did not materialise as planned. Yes - the raise should've been done long before, and, as me, you wager that this was poor planning and disappointing (to put it mildly) foresight. All eggs put into the TX basket, with no risk to them.

The SP falls to 18p. You now have to raise, but the City can now, by unfortunate timing of their issue, see your accounts, and start taking the p!ss. You're cap in hand, so some of the bucket shops chance an offer at 10p.

You take it, or you go bust.

You don't have to tell me about the management shortfalls in the above; how things should've been stewarded better; the resultant loss of confidence; and the loss of credibility.

But if you're *really* at absolute zero, then you ain't ever gonna get your target, or ever make a profit, so you ship out fella.

If, like me, you've seen the TNBC information online, you see the new compounds and the strategy to put them into stand-alone, risk-mitigated, fast, efficient, shiny "companies", and, like me, you wonder why no one else is doing that, then you keep your punt, get your pecker up, and try to see some light. This bit of the strategy IS going to work.

You like cars. If you're a mechanic, and you see a 1980 BMW M1; perfect, but with no tyres, and you can have it for £100,000, and you happen to have the right tyres in your garage, you buy it don't you. It's a no-brainer. Well that's me in drugs pal, and I know how to do that, and I also know the strategy and how they plan to do it, and that part is right.

The easy option is to sack the BOD; just one letter required - but let's face it; they're not shysters, so I'm just not going to do that. And at such a critical juncture, its a personal strategy that would be hard to run with, for anyone new.

Everyone is independent and can make their choice. It's good to complain, and it's good to thumb screw the BOD of any company, periodically, but it's excruciating to be a miserable stuck record in every contribution you choose to labour all the other SHs with, no?

I'm probably still blocked by you, so you won't read this, but that's my take.

I don't think even the BOD thought we'd be raising at 10p, Lockdown. I certainly didn't. It was terrible, but we are where we are. But do you really think they'd do it through choice? No chance. It was 10p or a 0p SP.

We all lost (well, apart from you buying at 10p, it seems), but we are where we are. We have a very health cash runway and very modest cash burn, so there is a good platform to now get back to 20/30p and on, if cards are now played correctly. I hear the calls about management, but the stars have, to an extent, all lined up in precisely the wrong way, and, however it was managed, there's a lot of bad luck that has contributed to this. Its not through greed, or spite, that we find ourselves at 10p, and that's why I decided to get on, positively.

I may get egg on my own face this year; so be it. But as a CEO, would you be putting any effort in at all anymore, if your SHs despised you? I wouldn't. If I had tried my best on 18 hour days, I'd shaft the lot of them. But one thing Suzy isn't is nasty, so we're lucky we've not got me.

PS - if it was easy to create a fake profile, I wouldn't have spent the last 25 years grafting, so that maybe was a waste :-)

Hi All,

Today I’ve had a meeting with Suzy and Mark Treharne - a fairly robust and direct meeting - about retail expectations and delivery. As of today, I’m not currently “inside” on anything, but we have agreed that I will now take on a more regular and formal role in shareholder representation. If I need to be made “inside” for certain matters, I have agreed to this. I will tell the BOD directly what the retail base would like to see, and offer input when appropriate.

This, by mutual consent, is not a board position, as that would entail involvement in many house-keeping matters that are of little interest to both myself and yourselves, but it is a change in input, beyond the usual ad hoc conversations. I will discuss strategy and shareholder delivery with Suzy on a regular basis, and am assured that input, both from me, and yourselves, will be at the forefront.

Suzy is acutely aware of the current level of dissent amongst the shareholder base, in addition to the root causes – e.g. dilution and 201, and is trying to remediate this in a professional and dignified way.

I have taken the decision to be as helpful as I can in offering this input.

I would like to think that she and the rest of the team might get a bit of breathing space for a period of time, whilst arrangements are made to this end.

In due course, I will collate a series of shareholder questions/comments/concerns, and, possibly in a live format, will ask these, directly, in person. On behalf of shareholders, I will expect clarity, movement, and momentum. They will expect a degree of listening, a cessation of personal abuse, and an opportunity to deliver within a reasonable and realistic timeframe.

I believe, from our conversations, that we will see progress in the coming weeks, which we all want.

All the best, Adam

TNBC drug is already worth 10M.

Surprise!

(see Sanofi/C4X last April).

Yes; I do make things up as I go along, Valtree.

I do loads of stuff; some good, some bad.

The one thing though, that's not been fulfilled on my personal bucket list, is avail myself to a lifeboat, before all the angry passengers pushed me off the plank, i.e the ultimate move of a scoundrel; to jump before you are pushed.

Even Boris hung on to face the vote. That's fairly embarrassing isn't it.

You didn't.

You straightened your comb; fluffed up your wattles; and came back to throw mud.

Now I do admire that in you. A brass neck of the highest order.

Morning all.

The answer is 8 years less that if you hadn't run the Phase 1.

In case you hadn't realised; because you couldn't do your job (and hence no longer work in the industry), 201 now needs evergreening.

TX will likely change formulation, rerun the IND, and rerun the Phase 1. Again, because you are an incompetent.

The good news is that we'd have a fresh formula, and patent (no; they can't get out of the VAL exclusivity for the target, before you ask), and doing this would maximise the royalties to VAL in the long term.

In summary, any patent issues have arisen because you are incompetent.

I find it laughable that you're coming on here to invite someone to say it.

It is a shame that your professional stink still clouds the fate of the drug.

It's also a pity that your personal stink can plague our spare time here, too.

Credit where it is due.

That is one of the best "short" biotech CEO interviews I have seen.

Wrong Porky. I've bought on both the open Market, and in the placing - about 2M new shares.

6-8 years to see revenue for the incoming drugs? Are you serious? TNBC is in an SPV now, so theoretically could be sold or out licensed anytime, from now, until 2-3 years at IND stage. You know this. And as for "the NHS now has a TNBC drug, so no need". LMAO.

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt, as you used to make some good points. But you know better than this, and it's poor isn't it. Smacks of desperation.

For someone that went to ramp a very underwhelming set of probiotics, in a vastly inflated Co, on another share board, this is a very poor deramping attempt isn't it. Maybe you're better at the former. Try a bit harder. Assume your audience isn't dumb mate.

I am actually, yes. 3 years absolute tops, if you want to be very fair.

201 development timelines and subsequent patent issues purely down to previous management incompetency. You can blame BOD for some things, but you can't blame Suzy et al for those development timescale delays, to be fair.

No; 2 years should have nearly all preclinical safety and efficacy data, ready for the big package.

These membrane disrupting peptides, in polymeric nano carriers, assuming this is what we have, are as novel as they sound. Very, very, next generation, very novel, and very exciting.

If the team can get some decent safety data, this will be of massive interest to bigger buyers, and could also be groundbreaking. Credit where credit is due; this is fairly top shelf.

I've been fairly critical of the BOD over the last week, but this is now a good time to kick off a material come-back. Those fortunate to be able to average down have now done so.

If the work on the new TNBC compound has concluded satisfactorily, then this data analysis should be expedited, to make the decision to transition it to the SPV stage, or not. There is now plenty in the kitty to fund the 500K VAL development side costs for one of these SPV compounds, and such news would be welcomed, not least by myself.

Any compounds reaching the SPV stage will be lead-optimised, and so will be ready to commence efficacy and toxicity analysis, as they progress to the IND (Investigational New Drug) stage. VAL has set tight deadlines of around 2.5 years to do this, and the team do know what is required to then out-license them. In fact I know that VAL has formed a list of key questions that large pharma have specifically told them to answer, when going back to market these.

These new compounds are not 201. They are novel, hopefully first-in-class, compounds, with a completely fresh (up to) 20-year patent. They are also in areas of unmet/poorly-met clinical need, and so they may ultimately qualify for fast-track designations. The oncology ones will also qualify for S9 preclinical development packages, which are quicker and more streamlined. This is all good. You can feel good about investing in these - they are worthwhile.

For the more medically agnostic investor, the 2-3 intervening time between Lead Optimization and IND application is a stage of exponential value accretion. Entering an SPV and optimized, I'd "value" something around 5-10MUSD, which could be larger in one go, than the current MCap itself. I know an AIM outfit who generate compounds for large Pharma, at this stage, for 10MUSD, per pop. Once in an SPV, the candidate can be sold at any point, up to, and including, the IND submission stage. So the value rises from this initial figure, to a package deal, which could ultimately be worth anything up to 500MUSD in milestones, plus single digit royalties (currently). Again - these are NOT 201 - there is NO baggage and there should be NO patent issues.

The new compound RNSs that I would like to see will include target, Mode-of-Action, and a brief synopsis of the panel of tests that have thus far been undertaken. Investors will also want to see the global market figures. Key also will be the originating Lab/partner. For the TNBC candidate, for example, a world-class institute such as King's College or UCL will add significant provenance to the test article, and will help attract significant investment going forward.