Member Info for sadoldgit

Very witty HbD.
The decline in negativity works wonders.

Initial CTA application at end of July 22. Getting on for 8 months. Would you be happy with this delay? How much longer is the delay likely to be?

I would guess a major cause of the problem is people working from home. Covid and li knows have created it. Covid is no longer lockdown threat yet many still work from home. To be precise claim to work from home. Never available to answer the phone and response to email communications, not far from hopeless.

On wards and upwards and steady climb from.here.

Regards

No advantage and wasted cost to run both sets of trials Aber. I don't know about you but have very little faith in MHRA.

Clearly did not take long to have required documentation translated.

Pleased they have not put into an Asian country.
Asian people have slightly different genetics to Caucasians.

Oh look we have gone blue. Perhaps the doom and gloom merchants could contribute their wisdom and and knowledge as to why this should be the case.

Regards

Sneckieboy , as I have asked you before, what exactly do you want the BoD to do.

They have not been sitting idle on their bum. They have initiated CTA application in Aussie.

Sareum have requested further clarity from MHRA / GLPMA. No response to this request.

Are you telling me that this is acceptable?

All you do is whinge. On the plus side however it does enable one to grab a few cheap shares.

By all means tell us what you think the BoD should do.

My personal opinion is they have done well to compensate for an inadequate
, understaffed and inexperienced staff.

I suppose you could take it for not being SQEP.

Clearly you are happy with all these regulatory bodies as you apportion all blame to the BoD

Regards

I would think after waiting at least 3 months after requesting clarification from MHRA with regards to GLP MA review Sareum.have made best decision.

Agencies and goverment bodies have already
identified and admitted how under staffed and inexperienced the MHRA have become.

GSK have already high lighted this problem.

Excellent post RMM, Nice to see a little normality and balance on this chat board.

Regards

Good thatvSareum.have initiated CTAin Aussie land.
Can't wait forever for MHRA MA over here to communicate.

Absolutely disgusting really.
Australians much more efficient than us. I think most countries more efficient than us.

Nigh every government body or council body in this country inept.

Onwards and upwards.

Science does not change as such but does evolve.

By the way your mate CoL is very quiet. Has he come to terms with the constant drivel he has written here. A manipulator of the truth to the highest order. A proven liar. I am on the money with this one.

As l have put here many times before we rise on good news and tend to drift when little or no news. So l don't understand where you garner your opinion that l am a serial.ramper.

Regards

Sneckie boy just exactly what do.you suggest the board do. They know more than you have more shares than you and run the company.

Very little they can do for negotiations in 737. They are a minority party, with a 27.5% financial interest.

As for SDC 1801 which is awaiting GLP MA review what would you suggest they do?

They have investors here proper ones not like the in and out brigade on here that spout anything to suit their agenda

As for what is posted on here affecting the SP you are not correct in yhis. In a bear market of which we are in the slightest hint of sells will drop the SP.

In a bear market the opposite is not true when shares are purchased. On buys they will not climb.

I am sure you have seen the days when shares in the tens of thousands have been bought with very little or no increase in SP.

Take a day when only a few thousand or a few hundreds or tens of shares are shown as sold and the SP suffers far higher than equivalent buys gain.

With 66 million odd shares in issue there are very few in free float. If the company where in dire straits there would be massive selling.

Hence the deramp brigade that attack at times of little to no news when SP can be volatile.

All they need do is start the ball rolling.

AIM market cap is down over 55% over past 12xmonths. Pharmaceutical industry has been hot especially hard. People move money into industry sectors that are growing. Look at the gas and oil as well as arms manufacturers since just prior too and the start of the war in Ukraine

FTSE does not suffer to the same extent from the ramp deramp postings that the AIMarket are inundated with.

Regards

CoL tell us more about these Nitrosamines and why some pharma companies are unlikely to touch us.
Are we likely to suffer the same absolute drivel you posted about 737 with SDC1801 and 1802?

Plenty of mouth on the negativity and when you are asked to back up your opinion you either do not answer or become evasive.

As l asked you to state before to reinforce your negative statement.

Does the chemical structure of 737 contain Nitrosamines?

The answer l know as well as you do is that it does not.
A slight credit to be given to you here ( not much) as you did avoid answering directly

Had you answered yes it would open you up to legal action being taken against yourself.

Of course if you answered no ( although correct) it would question your purpose or to be more precise your intent of posting such scaremongering bs. Make you look a bigger clown than you already are.
Libellous information spreading. You you state to imply fact when this is not the case.

In a court of law l will remind you that what is written or spoken is determined on how the common man in the street would interpret.

You need be very careful what you put sonny.

Yes, l do rememberThoth mentioning about the emergence of the more sinister type of poster.

Regards

Col you are getting desperate sonny.
You created the elephant in the room. Just put up a valid counter.
You have from your very post here evaded any direct questions put to you

You are not alone little one. There are more like you on onthe chat boards.

Now you spout re bile.

Now we get sarcasm
Very funny. You are defeated Cozl. People here see through you. Some will.use you too.

As l have put out before. Beware of poster new ones with no history. The balance approach route purporting to see things from both sides. Ironically These people push FEAR UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT.
I will congratulate you on one thing Col is than in this respect you are at the top of the tree.

Just one more thing Col

On the topic of Nitrosamines are you going to sow FUD seeds with regards to SDC1801 and 1802

Just a simple yes or no will do.

The way you have been spouting on recently should be no problem for a person of your calibre.

How is the SDC 1801 compound protected by patent?

Perhaps you might get a bit of support from Sneckieboy.

LMFAO.

Regards to all genuine investors/posters

CoL I asked you to state whether the 737 chemical structure contained nitrosamines. A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Show me where

I merely asked you, (as the 737 Compound at risk as you infer causes great concern to lndustry.) to state confirmation that SRA 737 contains nitrosamines as you infer.

You explicitly state 737, not compounds in general.

I would also add that your recent previous posts are nothing more than a very vain backtrack on your extremely negative associated 737 nitrosamine risks. aimed at scaremongering people.

You have a history of manipulation as shown by your previous postings. You state untruths.

Just ask me and l will happily post as many examples as you would like.

As for the ' I did say l was not going to comment on this subject further' all l am asking is to look at a balanced approach.

You do not like any positive posts. But you feel.it it ok to spout twisted and ill applied science detail to invoke fear uncertainty and doubt.

Now you are challenged about this you act the victim. Clearly many of the posters here can see just how transparent you are.

A shining example.
You state you only read this board when you are at work
A couple of days ago you post that you will not be on here for a while as on your way to work and you will allow ( really allow, who the hell.in a jumped up self opinionated little specimen like yourself gives you any right to allow or not allow.)

You state a lot of garbage sonny but nothing of any substance.

Which one is the lie?

Very interesting read and great find there gekgo. I have not come across anything as near as detailed for SRA 737. From 2017/18 and yet no real patent announcements until early/mid 2020.

Am intrigued as to how you came across this.

I do find strange is the amount of now currently available info which was produced several years ago and not available at the time or shortly thereafter.

Must not look too positively as all
Seriously great find. I dare say interested parties would already be aware of these patents as well of course CPF the deal makers.

Ought to know by end of month whether CPF choose to rapid on licence or develop further and then on licence.

I think the decision may very well be announced on the 6 monthly results. May be why a little late as only notified of complete return of data last week.

Still not answered as to whether SRA737 chemical compound contains nitrosamines.
Scaremongering is all you do and spread

One more thing Cozl Why would there be a patent for SDC 1801 as covered by SDC 1802 Both SDC 1801 and SdC 1802 made up from the same compounds whether group 0 group 1 or groups.

Showing your levels of BS coming through as usual CoL. You are not clever at all. Cunning yes

More holes in your stories than holes in a bpiece of Gorgonzola.

Regards

CoL You were asked if nitrosamines exist in the 737 chemical composition
You have answered that your self.
It contains 2 secondary amines you state. Yes l know but l did not ask you how many secondary amines 737 contain.

Nitrosamines R2N-N=O. The patented 737 compound does not contain Nitrosamines

So we can confirm without any doubt that the patented 737 compound contains no nitrosamines in its design.

You could have answered this directly but for some strange twisted reason chose not to.

However, by the very presence of secondary or double carbon molecules in 737 make up there is a possibility that in a manufacturing process nitrosamines could be produced in the absence of adherence to GMP.

No big deal here either.
I know what facts are. One fact l do k ow is you will manipulate and misrepresent factual.information or even comment on something you know nothing about I an effort to undermine.

It is a fact l think you are a tw.t, a cunning conniving one at that. You have not posted anything otherwise to suggest any different.

CoL Michelle Garrett is not a clinician, Michelle involved since day1 with the design, development and investigational laboratory work of CCT244744 and CCT245737.

This womans contribution to the development of CHK inhibitors is second to none.

As I have stated before her input to CPF if required is invaluable.

This woman cannot make the decision of who best to on licence to, or sell outright to and no one has suggested she can.

You did not even know that Michelle Garrett has served as an advisor to Sierra Oncology.

AS for the
'In relation to my other point and recognizing the implied deramping accusation, it was just highlighting that there are plenty of areas other than clinical that might impact which companies are interested. If you want 737 specifics then nitrosamines and PFAS are pertinent from the chemical structure. The cross-industry impact of nitrosamines that started with the sartans a few years ago cannot be exaggerated. Companies have different views on taking on and addressing these sorts of risks which would influence their enthusiasm to proceed. To paraphrase SOG, that is fact not opinion..

tell us what the fact is with regards to
' If you want 737 specifics then nitrosamines and PFAS are pertinent from the chemical structure'

How is this factual?
Look forward to your explanation on this.

Regards

'If you want 737 specifics then nitrosamines and PFAS are pertinent from the chemical structure.'

CoL can you confirm that what you have implied, that nitrosamines are present in the SRA737 chemical structure?
Below I believe is the make up of SRA737.
C16 H16 F3 N7 O
Is it not a fact that Nitrosamines and part of their chemical structure must have an Oxygen atom double bonding with a Nitrogen atom. ie covalent bonding of these two atoms sharing 4 bonding electrons instead of 2.

If this is the case I can find no indication of the presence of this part of a molecule in SRA737 chemical make up.

I look forward to you educating me on this one.

That is a very cute reply HbD. The wonders a cup of coffee can make

HbD we would have been eligible for 27.5% of any Royalties on sales circa 3%