Member Info for rhubarbmk2

BF - Agree. But the more that is posted, and the more rattled the posts become in light of a (professional) lack of response from the BOD, as a LTH myself, the more I'm inclined to hold.

IF two former Directors are flinging insults around on a share chat site, then; a. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that commercial deals were never achieved prior to the managerial change, and b. The candidates are more exciting than I initially thought.

Because if something in there were a dead duck, for whatever reason (even if not publicly disclosed), then you'd just be walking away quietly wouldn't you?

I'm qualified to read the data Valtree. And I've now come to the solid conclusion that the previous board didn't really know their ar&e from their elbow, apart from a keen intellect in lining their own pockets. In light of that, I'm fairly relaxed about the new board. And, to be honest, everyone who might be interested in 201/301 will be able to see the data for themselves, with the addition of any necessary scientific expertise, and come to their own diligent conclusions.

Ah, OK Valtree. You therefore have a binary choice - please choose wisely...

Should the new board:

a. Break the contract and reveal the name of the Sponsor, going back to square one, with no additional value added, and a year of time lost?, or...drumroll.....

b. Blame the "old board" for a lack of expiry clause within the aforementioned contract?

What would you do, Valtree?

Since you asked, I'm going for option b.

But the old board drew up the contract with the Japanese company, after a prolonged period of inertia, did they not Valtree? The preclinical efficacy package, although promising, as it stood was limited (according to what I've seen in the patent). I wouldn't have been overly confident in going from those two studies, with limited n numbers, straight into a Phase 1 either. I think there was a choice; do some more testing with an "I owe you", with nothing in the coffers, or let someone else do it at their own expense.

Can't agree RB; has to be this one:

Man says to his wife: 'Pack your bags, I've won the pools.' She says: 'What should I pack? Something light, something warm? Where are we going?' He says: 'We're going nowhere. Just pack your bags and **** off.'

#awaits a slap on the wrists for sharing jokes whilst "Rome burns"# :-)

SatuV; many thanks for clarifying this. So in your view, the 201 data was sufficient (I'm assuming this, as you have listed most of the previous VAL management team as being responsible).

In light of that, as the current BOD will be discussing that very data with potential co-sponsors (whom I'm sure will have been in contact since before the study was finished, and the historical management team where still in situ), what potential stumbling blocks are causing you to think that hope has been lost for cancer patients?

Either the study has fulfilled its objectives, and the IP is good, but Sponsors will not pursue this with a new Director; or there were shortfalls in study execution, which have necessitated further in silico predictions to be undertaken, in order for the product to attain a more robust viability.

Which do you think it is? In my experience, it's highly unlikely that any interested parties would now not be interested, solely due to a medicinal chemist running the company instead of a biologist, isn't it? I've seen the presentations, and am fully confident that the new management team know how to handle that data.

Sorry - that's January 2020.

I have a question for SatuV (and possibly Valtree).

As the 201 trial had already ended (January 2021) during the previous management’s tenure, so therefore any and all data endpoints would’ve been collected by then, with a procedural (routine) delay in results publication until September, why blame the current board for the “thin” data and subsequent perceived inertia?

I have spoken to current members of the board; there doesn’t appear to me to be a lack of expertise in the team around the results and how they might be interpreted. Suzy has spoken publicly, as a member of the previous team, around some of the difficulties in running the trial, and has taken partial ownership (good for her) around that, but, reading the below posts, I’d be under the impression that the trial was “top-shelf” until Suzy took over proper. But it had already ended under the stewardship of the previous CEO, had it not?

This is not “having a go”; it’s always easy in retrospect and from the side-lines to be scientifically critical – and this isn’t my intention. I’ll also leave it to others’ more affected to critique the financial handling of the Company. I’m just interested in the “blame” angle here. I just cannot see how to justify that.

You have miles to go before it's second rate son.

RB - agreed. Static L2, lots of sells and the SP has remained. After hours?

Wonderful news pal.

...basically, the bar is very low for anything that may even remotely work...

Well lucky for us it didn't take son.

This is a really topical e-mail. Only recently I was involved in an infection study where one of those two very compounds was used as a control article - and it did diddly squat in the model (it does work in milder cases).

I agree with you Gilders. I do a lot of acute infection work. I'd be dying to get in on this project if it wasn't a conflict. I thought that this was a comprehensive answer to those questioning 201's potential application in this area (i.e. confusing it with the inhibition of direct viral replication).

The models of acute infection are so hard to treat, that it is even hard to find a decent "positive control" in these studies; namely that there isn't much that actually works to "prove" that your test article is either working better, or not working at all.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the next RNS of substance is going to blindside us all. In my experience, whenever one is trying to predict, with confidence, what will happen next, something very left field springs out.

Watch this space. GLA.

Yeah it does mostly; you could also try derma-rolling or micro-needling with topical finasteride, or even minoxidil, in the first instance. I don't take it and this is not official medical (or veterinary, in your case) advice, Nelson :-)

Hi Grace - you'll have to LinkedIn me for my honest take, as I wouldn't want to state publicly a firm opinion, given the sensitive nature of the material.

However, suffice it to say that I would expect that any team working on any potential offers would have a full grasp of the entire portfolio on offer; not necessarily the reporting VP.

And I have a theory that VAL will downplay any other compounds, to use as "sweeteners", when they counter with a 2.36p asking price. ;-) Monthly Finasteride subscriptions are burning a hole in old baldy's pockets, and silver is getting more expensive.

Grace; you're back - nice to hear from you.

I can now delete that line of enquiry: "Grace penned the e-mail".

:-)

RB; It'll be that TR-1 I've been waiting for from Neil Woodford :-0

That's a decent bit of fraud, if it is. Those are real people and whoever has written that (if fraud) hasn't got a lot wrong, which is very interesting. How on earth would they have got hold of the e-mails though? Bottom e-mail is correct for 201 in terms of what they're doing; second up is correct in that target saturation is a big outstanding question, but the top e-mail is wrong, because 80-100p isn't enough :-)