Member Info for rhubarbmk2

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.

Mate; I've had the same problems with my broker, who won't deal with Turner Pope either. As decent as TP are, somewhat shambolic.

It's currently an attractive prospect for me at 10p, and I have asked to partake in the open offer. MCap of <10M, with up to 2.5M in cash is a fairly rare phenomenon. That being said, the lack of delivery is now reflected in the SP, and that is why we are where we are. It’s as simple as that. There have also been inconsistencies in communication. I point, as an example, to the 5th January 2022 RNS, with a statement of “This Service Agreement enables ValiRx to work as a consultant to TheoremRx and will receive market rate, fair value consultancy fee, invoiced each calendar month until the termination of the Service Agreement”. As payments have not thus far been received, it is economical-with-the-truth statements like this which make many good people state to me that the BOD “lies”. I’ve heard this too many times, and with a level of communication as good as Suzy and the team, this should not be the case. I personally think that Suzy executes her best efforts, and in good faith, so that’s why we need to bring these things up, and rinse them out publicly, as and when they do occur. It’s sloppy, and those more experienced BOD members around her need to keep their eye on the ball, and be sharper. They also need to be given a strong voice, as, as appealing as Suzy and Kevin are as a team, it is simply unhealthy if they are making all the decisions, in isolation.

So, in summary, it’s been a torrid couple of days for many, and for others, longer. We are not bankrupt, and actually, plus rather unexpectedly, look fairly healthy from an investment stance. However, good will has taken a severe beating. Trust has been lost.

I fully support the BOD to continue on. In my view, the injuries are not fatal, but they are still very open. I think there’s some savlon left, but there aren’t a stack of boxes left.

In fairness, the BOD do understand that a BOD position places me in a tight spot; notably when it comes to restricting my ability to stick up for shareholders and discuss issues publicly. So it’s not just a case of not wanting the input. I have to say that.

Kevin apparently likes my “penetrating” challenges. I will try my best to bring them. For anything scientific, Suzy also knows, and is always happy, to chat with me about that.

That doesn’t mean, however, that I cannot contact them with investor “advice”, and that comes free-of-charge, starting today ?

The page was turned to a new Chapter yesterday, and with that, added expectations of the BOD. Soft targets have now become hard targets, and these must be delivered upon.

I will speak to Kevin about his “buy-and-build” strategy at the next live QandA, as I have done my own calculations for four companies; likely value adding capabilities; simulated SP at each inflection; expected revenue; and expected addition to the Market Cap. It’s a great strategy (along with the new candidates). However, in my view, this is not practicable to commence at 10p; hence my comment yesterday that something has to be delivered, based on the current assets, the new assets, and potentially up to a 2.5M kitty, in the first instance, and within the next 6 months. This will ensure that, whilst there is plenty of money in the kitty, with absolutely no danger of it even beginning to run dry, other options are still viable and open at the end of this time-scale.

I would also say here that, although I respect the Company for putting out the RNS before the AGM (even though they had to, to use “last year’s” allowance), I found self-congratulatory comments on expertise; having just lost some people half their paper assets, somewhat tone-deaf. That was not the place, and certainly not the time, to be patting each other on the back. It was time to take ownership, and admit that, although events may have conspired against you, you hold your hands up with a little humility. You can defend yourself robustly, without alienating a majority of your retail shareholders.

I can't speak Novice - I'm grog with COVID at home. I'd like to though!

I feel absolutely terrible at the moment for friends who have invested too much money, on the back of some overly-optimistic, to put it mildly, comments.

If people subscribe to the open offer, there will be more money in the kitty. I am considering it. The Board then have a space of time, in my opinion, to deliver. They must deliver. And they must deliver before further dilution.

There's still a lot to like, but there's also things not like about today.

To be honest, and I appreciate the Board appointment question, it may be better for me to stay outside right now. I will hold the BOD to account, along with others.

Very happy for Porky's collation. I plan to attend and vote in person, so if anything isn't covered, I will try and ask to fill any gaps.

I have made a formal request to the BOD that proof-of-funds are provided in the next week, and/or an interim payment made.

If the BOD are satisfied with proof-of-funding progress, then a material statement is required for shareholders; beyond a statement of "sufficient progress".

In addition, if the BOD are satisfied, then a renewed exclusivity period of 4 weeks should be granted.

If they are not satisfied that proof-of-funding has been provided, and an interim payment has not been made, then the period of exclusivity should be removed, as of 30th June 2022, whilst other alternatives are explored.

TheoremRx should be free to return, after this point, should funds be raised, but not within a constrained exclusivity environment.

Best, Adam

Southern, if there's a deal in the next week or so, Suzy comes out a hero, naturally; the strategy is "proven", everyone's happy, and the Company rises logarithmically from there.

The TNBC candidate likely passes in-house, is in-licensed proper, and we have an asset that could, in a coupe of years or sooner, be the next first-in-class blockbuster.

If there's no deal, then either TX lose exclusivity, or find a way to string it out further. Everyone's (rightly) p*ssed, trust in the BOD hits a wall, and a working overhead and thorough explanation/justification mandatory. Shareholders will vote with their take.

You can also be in or out at that stage, depending on how you see fit.

As that answers the last seventy or so of your posts (and CBs), now without a need to repeat yourself ad nauseam, you'd be welcome to pass the intervening interval chewing fat with some fine people on here.

They know the score. They are invested. They just don't really want to drone on and on about what is a fairly binary outcome, time and time again; rinsing and repeating the same lines over, and over, and over again.

Cobalt blue. You didn't ask me, but the answer was too obvious to ignore.

Borsaci; that is interesting, because it may be that 301 works in part in endometriosis by dampening down the associated inflammation, in addition to limiting the hormone-driven growth of the endometrial lesions themselves; hence why the same peptide seems to have utility in sepsis. Good spot.

If Ken is breakfasting with the next generation of entrepreneurs, and Theorem is apparently no longer "stealth", then I'd expect, as first adopters of his new venture, we'd at least be invited to his lunchtime seminar about exactly what the state of play is with this deal.

Priorities right there, OB, pal.

There's a treatment called "metronomic dosing". I used it in one of my own pets. It's chemo; not aimed to cure, at lower doses, but to "alleviate" and slow down, rather than to ablate.

One of the things that attracts me to Suzy's way of thinking is to maximise quality of life. I discussed this with her re. 401. Few had heard of using low dose thalidomide, but she had. I think this will set VAL apart from the "hit them with everything; make them miserable; and then they'll suffer anyway" chain of thought.

Glad you raised it. I think that this will strike many chords at VAL and with Suzy personally.

My thoughts with your family mate.