Member Info for roses

FFS uncanny, have you even bothered to read the published article.

Maybe you could share your insights after you have read it and if you think I’m wrong then tell me, I’m always happy to be corrected or told I got it wrong, but I never seem to hear that from you or anyone else on here for that matter.

You may not like what I post, but you never tell me that what I post is not accurate ?

Uncanny, can we stick on topic please.

Apologies for the typos, it’s quite fiddly on a phone.

Here is an extract for reference:

We conducted a phase 2 clinical trial in late-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. The full trial objectives were to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of VAL401 in the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma, although only the pharmacokinetic parameters are provided in the present manuscript.

Heidhoncho, you mentioned that it seems like a drug that needs repeat dosing.

From a cursory glance at the ‘peer’ reviewed article last night it seems that all 8 patients were only able to take a single dose of 401, it looks like not a single patient had a second dose.

The trial was also supposed to asses safety, tolerablity, pharmocokinetics and efficacy, but they were only able or willing to report and comment on the pharmocokinetics with little explaination as to why.

They also drew attention to issues arising from a much shorter half life than expected, and issues with the lipid formulation binding to unneccisary areas of the body which resulted in higher dissipation levels from the body that would normally be associated with excretion, but were not in this case associated with excretion.

They also noted that to get conclusive results, they would need to properly examine one of the organs (can’t remember which one off hand) which im guessing would need to be done in an autopsy..

There are a few other issues, but they were the main ones I can recall.

It even states right at the very bottom -

“Conflict of Interest

SJD is employed by and is a shareholder and director of ValiSeek Limited, and is also a shareholder and director of Tangent Reprofiling Limited. PCT is a shareholder and director of Tangent Reprofiling Limited. GSM is employed by and is a director and shareholder of Valirx plc, and is a director of ValiSeek. MA is employed by and is a shareholder of Ariana Pharmaceuticals, Paris, France. FP and CW are employed by Ariana Pharmaceuticals, Paris, France.”

Woody - that is not a peer reviewed article.

If you look at the authors, the main two are Suzy dilly and George Morris.

Since when do drug companies now write their own peer reviewed articles, you couldn’t make it up, oh hang on, it’s valirx, never mind.

I'll have a look back through the rns after dinner where they say its suitable going forward for palliative care.

As I said, with val you have to read all the rns , not just one.

Otherwise you may end up with the impression that some of them are far more promising and far more progressed than they actually are.

Uncanny, it’s a palliative end of life treatment for the sufferers of cancer.

Not a trial to try and cure or fix the cancer.

You need to (as usual with val) read several of the rns together to get the full story.

You know this and have commented on it in the past, so I’m not sure why you are attempting to dismiss it now ?

Uncanny, unfortunately, after VAL401 started trials, they reluctantly were forced to admit via an RNS that 401 had to be reclassified as a pain killer and not a cancer treatment, ie. a palliative end of life treatment.

Not only that, only 8 patients have been treated and not a single one finished the trial.

There is not a single hope in hell that it has even close to finishing. early phase 2 trials yet .
Phase 3 trials are at least 4 to5 years away at even an optimistic view, and that’s only if they can show highly efficacious and advantageous results in the next phase 2 trials (if they are deemed worthy to continue)

Gige, back in 2011, accounting for the 125 for 1 consolidation, the share price got to 395.00p.

Hiwevever, even at those giddy prices, the market cap was still only 20m.
Just shows the obliterating effect the constant dilution has on us poor share holders.

If and when they consolidate again, we will once again be here in a couple of years time saying - do you remember when it was as high as 0.13 pre consolidation.

Rinse and repeat.

Freddy, which death spiral are you talking about. They have signed up to no less than six death spirals in the last six years.

All have obliterated share holders, but none were such short lived and misleading than the last one.

I agree, they will do it one way or another, they always have.

But at what cost to the share holders ? Two consolidations so far and 99.999999% down since listing.

The plain and simple fact is, they are only legally allowed to issue a maximum of 170m shares (approx. 168k after fees) until the next agm which is end of June next year, and we know they go through that in a month or two at the most.

So as usual we are all left guessing and praying for a miracle.

Apologies for auto corrects.

The wages, salaries,bonuses and consultancy fees come to approx. 985k per year.

So it will at least cover the bulk of their renumeration, but not much else.

And after the brokers 20% fees, that will leave them with a total of £168k max they can raise until June 2020, and as we know, that’s pretty much what they go through in a month or so at the moment.

Definitely squeaky bum time !

Nomlugo, correct me if I’m wrong as it’s late. The company has only the authority to issue 170m shares which equates to approx. £210k until the next agm, which is June 2020.

Holy moley, they will need that in the next 6 weeks.

I smell an EGM asking for dis application for pre emption rights and a consolidation, otherwise it’s probably lights out.

Tick tock

The highest mcap it’s ever been to is 21m

Probably just part of the annual retainer fee.

valju, on all other occasions when shares have been used for the placing fee or part thereof, then it states so in the RNS.

but on this occasion it says it was used to settle a liability.

valju I would say that the extra shares was for a previous unsettled bill.