Member Info for rhubarbmk2

Thankyou Mr. Nation.

One last contribution from me for new members. Most posters here are well-informed and, most importantly, well-intentioned. Read both the ramping posts (they can be marvellously entertaining), and the deramping contributions. Take the edges off and find the middle.

Today we've suffered the perfect AIM storm; all the downsides came together. Short-term investment, seeking of large gains, panic selling, holding of stock and, most crucially, negative speculation. Yes, we don't get relatively cushioned like the FTSE100, but the exciting drugs often arise here.

Taking stock, I think it's now time to give the BOD an opportunity to state their case. Give them a couple of days. This stock, and it's subscribers, have been fluid. The new Board need time to gauge their investor, to adapt, and then to address their questions and concerns. If, after you have seen this, the Company isn't for you, then fair play, but do try to make an informed decision once they've set their stall out.

One last thing - there will not be a placing. There's no headroom for it at present, and it is not planned.

See you tomorrow - tata

I'm not going to sit here and let you stick your head out of the parapet alone, Nick.

I've reviewed the release (I am fortunate to work in the industry). These RNS releases are incredibly tightly regulated; they require numerous rounds of comments/changes, and have to deliver the facts, as documented, concisely, in a fair and transparent manner. They invariably raise more questions that they answer, and I know that the BOD will be working diligently to address any questions as soon as possible, via the appropriate media channels. Biomed RNSs, in particular, are always a bit dry, but I prefer companies who are balanced and honest, to those that attempt to ramp the RNS. They know there’s loads that folk want to ask! In fact, I see the manner in which this has been delivered as a positive; that the BOD really are playing with a very straight bat indeed.

The primary aims of the study encompassed the assessment of the safety and tolerability of VAL201. This study has documented that VAL201 has demonstrated a good safety and tolerability profile. The lack of a MTD should not be mis-interpreted as not fulfilling the requirements of delineating the useable safety range of the drug (as some have alluded to this morning). It looks to be very kind in these respects, which is great news for patients. This is what we want; drugs that work and drugs that also don’t destroy the soul with side-effects. God knows, in oncology we need them.

Of course, we all wait to hear more detail about the efficacy of VAL201. It is stated on the RNS that it has a positive response rate (I haven’t read this lightly - you can’t cheat the PCWG2 guidelines, they’re a very tough cookie to crack), and many of us have studied the interim (Dec ’19) results with great excitement. I, for one, can’t wait to see the data from the extended range.

Buy and sell as you see fit. For me, all mine have been kept, along with a couple of extras last week and this morning (if the markets are stupid enough to manipulate, then I’m stupid enough to buy; maybe they could toddle off and fiddle with a company that’s actually not trying to do something decent), but please do your own research. Oh - and listen to Grace; I find her contributions spot on :-)

All the best everyone,

Adam Hargreaves

Don't worry pal; those of us with a GCSE in biology are, I can assure you :-)

Over 50% response rate from low-medium dosing, non-targeted, Phase 1/2b trial, with a safety profile suggestive of high tolerability, in the second most common cancer in men, and it's in the red. Well I never.

Honestly, it really doesn't look worrying. An oncology trial with that list, mainly of "possible" side effects; I'd take it.

Plus - they're monotherapeutic results. Targeted and in combination looks to be very exciting for sufferers.

I'm really hoping that some of the financial gain will be immediately invested in exploring the pre-/clinical potential of the decapeptide in ovarian and breast cancer. I really think there's great scope here.

Brace yourselves.

Okay, the RNS is modest, compared to some (they are sensible), but this is an extremely significant response rate in a heterogeneous disease guys.

Hi Baxter, this figure was based upon quite recent acquisitions; see RedX and others for reference. For the definition of "good", I tried to lay out my thoughts a couple of evenings' ago to Grace. You'll be able to dig that out I'm sure from my profile. Obviously, this is personal opinion and not a recommendation/Nostradamus prediction! However, any potential royalties may not directly translate to a like-for-like adjustment in share price, due to differences in Market Cap versus Company Valuation. Needless to say, it's not small fry that we're talking in the event of a "good" scenario. And I do have a great deal of trust in the new board that they know all too well the value of these compounds .

At this juncture, my friend, I will take my cap off to you. You have consistently pointed to the fact that there is an "unusual" heads-up regarding this test article. You've told people this time and time again, and you have been right and helpful to do this. If the next batch of results are "good" or above, I shall very much look forward to your entrance onto the stage that day. :-)

So, in essence, and I never thought I'd type this, Saint Ts estimates are on the rather - ahem - conservative side. :-o Either way, if the results are even "good", the cash runway position shouldn't be an issue again.

I think the blood work was comprehensively expanded to add in all the variables to encapsulate what might be ordinarily generated later, say at Phase 2b. Basically, this has delayed this phase a bit, but I'd expect they'd now know where they have to be exposure, dose regimen, protocol, target postulation etc-wise, for the next stage. Someone asked about time. Depends on funding. Can expand to 2b over two years, Phase 3 same again, but very variable and likely longer in our situation, but in the window of this magnitude. Cost-wise; massive expansion of corporate sums paid in last 5 years, as the big players' in house capabilities have dried up in the main. Don't feel sorry for them, thought, they've raked it in on Coronavirus PR vaccine anticipation, so these acquisitions have become relatively low risk for them. Hard to place a figure; similar markets typically generation 500m in instalments up to Phase 1 commencement, with single digit royalties on release for IP transfer. But with these recent acquisitions, many are still early preclinical; this one is far, far, beyond that stage. So worth much more if sold rather than partnered. I favour the latter. And let's face it, it's such a worthwhile therapy area to be in, let's not lose sight of that.

Bob on there. What I find particularly insightful are the pre-treatment PSA criteria; pretty thorough and gives those interim results much more teeth that any prolongation was not by chance.

Shhh! Don't tell anyone. :-)

They're interesting benchmarks, mind. Extension by 2-4 months, and hailed as remarkable. That's because they can the titrate the dose of these very specific treatments to hopefully get beyond that. Reminds me a bit of VAL401 for the end-of stage study.

That's a bit cruel pal. Some people put hard earned cash into what are perceived as worthy and ethical investments, and it makes a big difference to them if the share price rises or falls. Some folk panic, others stay calm, but you don't need to hose the deck down with testosterone.

I'm not worthy to sit between those two, pal, but that's awfully kind. We just try and work through as best we can. There's a lot of very genuine folk on here.

Well, in the famous words of the noble Saint, although I've probably already got too many, sack it, I'm going in for another tranche before the herd arrives :-)

Don't worry, normal cycle of jitters.