Member Info for rhubarbmk2

It's like the Western Front isn't it.

I suppose that the bar charts aren't considering the mother of all hangovers that VAL has due to its historical legacy and recent exercises in shorting. Sentiment is hard to model, and I think, as you have alluded to, that we'll be bogged down in "neutral" until the next RNS, PR release etc... As a longer-term holder, these fluctuations don't concern me, and I don't see it as a bad thing that VAL isn't actively trying to whip up the market. If news comes, then at least the SP should move to reflect that more realistically/accurately, without too much foaming at the mouth.

On a positive note, here are the things that I'm looking to see:
1. VAL201 efficacy breakdown (natch).
2. Have the Japanese collaborators made headway in reformulating 201 (301) into an orally/implantable delivery? If they haven't, I expect VAL will invest here, because alternative deliveries will expand potential indications significantly.
3. News of new tie-ups, leads, collaborations etc in the preclinical space.
4. VAL401 funding - possibly an underestimated market for this slow-burner.

Realistically 2 and 3 will take some time, so any new material in these areas would be extremely welcome for me. I'll be analysing company proactivity/productivity from these, but they will take some time, to be fair to the BOD.

And a nice surprise may always be around the corner - e.g. chucking BC201 into a sepsis model
:-)

You never know; this could be one of the first Biotechs to be trading below cash over the coming months.

Thoughts with you pal. Hopefully you'll be back with us soon - one of my favourite contributors.

..and at the point of vindication, Iceman voluntarily puts his own head back on the line :-)

Hopefully a very, very, overdue re-rate.

This is as good a sign as any isn't it Nick. Just to expand upon what Grace said. She made a really pertinent point last night about therapy areas. Big Pharma often struggle to "let go" of "failed" test articles, and have the resources to trial in as many therapy areas as they see fit, often repositioning in, for example, a different tumor type, with variable, but sometimes very fortuitous success. This germane observation by her is very applicable to 201. Aside from endometriosis and prostate, we do know that there is potential in other major cancers for the decapeptide. VAL can't do it now, but if any funds arise, it will be interesting to see how this is played. A potential outlicensing of 201 should not necessarily preclude some more testing (with retained patent rights) in, for example, ovary, mammary, and uterine adenocarcinoma. We would need to pinpoint the potential utility here, which is less of an ask now, as we already know it is exceptionally well-tolerated, with good drug exposure, which answers many of the Phase 1/2b questions already. So I would love to see some "bridging" work undertaken with any funds release from 201 in the prostate arena. This, to me, would represent the highest level of intra-company investment, and I personally would be fully behind that if it were to materialise.

On VAL; the financial issues here are undoubtedly multi-factorial. There's a lot of promise/quality, as far as I can see, notably in 201 and 301, and the other possible therapy areas applicable to this test article are compelling. I think the first main issue is that the drug development program doesn't really lend itself particularly well to the AIM, especially for, and I would say these were historically in the majority, short-term investors. So, with the previous mix of high-speculation, high-risk, we did attract an incredibly high volume of day traders, with no real interest in the company or portfolio. In the process of "weeding" many of these out over the past few weeks, unfortunately, we have not yet attracted a whole lot more discerning "investing" investors, if you like, to balance this loss. This is really, I think, because, on paper, there isn't yet anything financially "solid" that people can get a hold of and run with. I'm not going to lie, it's slightly disappointing that the "unnamed" Japanese 301 collaborating company remains unnamed. I have a fairly good idea who it is (I will refrain, however, from speculating!), and this probably should have provided the first step-up to stability for the company. However, I am hoping that there is a termination clause in the contract to ensure that the transfer is time-limited, so this would allow VAL to issue a "poo or get off the potty" notification at a reasonable time (end-of-the-year)? Remember, these models can take a couple of months each to run and a couple more to collate. Of course, it goes without saying that there is a plus side to this collaboration; if the new models prove efficacy (again), then the price increases. So, it's not all a win-win for the collaborator to do this. I think it will be this, or a JV for 201, that will ultimately provide the first building block for onward stability and growth. We will, of course, suffer another spike on news, because, as you say, even "loyal" investors have suffered the previous volatilities and want to capitalise on this, but I see the waves attenuating over the next few months.

So for me, we are now in the position that many of the current shareholders, as present here, are in a holding pattern. And, credit to them, this is because they’ve taken the time and effort to research the products, history and status. I think that the MCap is shockingly low, personally, and this will put us off the radar to an extent, until we have something solid (a name) to grab onto. But I am as confident as I can be that this will come. We may not have an income stream, or product, as yet, but I can think of others’ in the same position who are 10-15X our MCap, in a similar position. I look forward to seeing more of Suzy and Kevin as steady hands to steer the ship forward. GLA.

The one thing that I could add is that, unlike 98% of Biotech companies, although we are trialling this (btw I see more of a long-term potential in Sepsis with this, rather than a short-term Covid treatment, and Mark is bang on with writing his patents - for both), we haven't made an absolute song-and-dance about it, we've been incredibly discreet, and so we should be relatively-shielded from third party advancement in the Covid vaccine and treatment arena. I forsee some companies who are hanging on the tail of Covid (grants galore) taking an absolute pasting in the coming year.

Congratulations Jenny; what wonderful news for you!

For me, I'm waiting for the next preclinical partnership. This cupboard was thoroughly cleaned recently and the team are now much more stringent; out with the old and all that. Getting one or two quality TAs in there with a decent preclinical efficacy package, along with the 2/3/401's, and bish-bosh; risks mitigated, solid growth, spectacular crashes attenuated.

Chuck in some decent PR/new website; get the personalities across; get the portfolio medically published; get these unmet medical needs met in the patient; get the attention; get the awareness; get onto Proactive Investors(!!); get into the Sunday Times, and the rest will sort itself out. Everyone's happy. Patients > Medicine > Company > Shareholders. Win > Win > Win > Win. Give them the time; this is the plan!

Put it this way; if the efficacy data is "good" or "excellent", depending on any patient specifics - e.g. anything promising from patients with bone metastases etc, then I hope Drs Dilly and Cox don't use Nico's post to set the price (no offence my good man)!

What a fascinating post. Lucky to have you on board pal. I move with the science. The science tells me one thing. The financials, as you have so eloquently described them, support this ascertain. A

In theory, yes, but I think the results will be published fairly sharpish once received anyway, so everyone can see - hopefully. I suppose it depends if a 3rd party (maybe with more to play for - size, portfolio-wise, etc...), want to jump first, before this stage. I'd like to think that the CEO is getting badgered by more than just the share-holders for more information at the moment - poor thing. It may also be that previously-interested parties have differing levels of interest following the managerial change, e.g. can they work with them on a more beneficial/inter-personal level.

Oh - I should add that "some" big pharma companies are more about career development than drug progression, not all (as he slowly loses all his customers) :-)

You can, pal: 401. Here’s the thing. The issue with repositioned and reformulated drugs is that they were just not very “sexy” a number of years ago. They weren’t the sort of “blue sky” thing that got the big pharma R&D Director his/her next promotion (large pharma is now about career development rather than drug development, but that’s another story).

401 is niche. It sits in a kind of efficacious/palliative cross-over space, so getting the right partner is undoubtedly more challenging and takes more time (there is, unfortunately, however, a growing need for it). It isn’t 201; the effects of neurological well-being versus actual effects on the tumor are harder to pinpoint based on the studies conducted so far (as far as I can see). However, looking more recently, there’s been somewhat more of a resurgence in the repositioning field; Thalidomide, for example, and don't forget the famous "repositioned" drug Viagra :-) . Some of these “traditional” small molecules have way more potential than they’ve ever been granted. Big pharma often lose sight of potential alternative avenues and repositions/reformulations; again, it’s just not seen as that glamorous.

Now, the thing that interests me about 401 isn’t just 401 in and of itself, although in both human and veterinary medicine, there is a real need (from experience) of having a reliable palliative drug to extend the terminal stages of life, with as much quality time as possible (and even with the chance of having some tumor lysis thrown in for good measure). It's the fact that it was reformulated and developed by the person whom now runs the company; i.e. someone with the medicinal chemical expertise to see a new opportunity in an otherwise relatively-mono-indicative test article. And, as far as I can see, these types of pharmaceutical opportunism are the exact remit of the new strategy. So it's really positive from my point-of-view, in more than one way.

You're right. I'm not prepared to battle with an unarmed man any longer.

I'm sorry if you've been burnt by something pal; genuinely, and wish you well in your endeavours.

I don't see it as a problem, per se. If it drifts, then it's likely to tempt longer-term holders, like myself and the regular posters here, to top up periodically. I think we'll end up with a bipolar shareholding. In a way, this is good, because it will help to stabilise any future baseline. However, obviously the flip side, as someone more enlightened that I pointed out previously (probably Rightback - by the way - love your commentary pal), is that this is going to put a lot of squeeze on the free-float. We may end up again with huge spikes and large spreads if any future announcements are made. So I think we should be ready to expect that.

Yes pal; and in many ways, I think is has been prudent to wait for the data, before signing a JV. With the full package, the most suitable partner can be sought, and they will pick the right one, I'm sure of that :-)

I see the BC201 programme as the start of a general hypothesis; on that could ultimately be useful in bacterial sepsis, or viral SARS, for example.

No - I wasn't being sarcastic pal; I genuinely mean't that. I mean't to say that if you had scientific questions, then folk like Grace below are always friendly and helpful - and very knowledgeable. They tell you the pros and the cons.