Member Info for sadoldgit

Interesting AI input there Potters.

41p giving just under 60 million MC.

On its own with phase 2 readiness following decent toxicology results l still value 400 million.

At this point an owner can put 1801 into any area it deems viable and of course unlikely to be withdrawn on safety issues if goes unrestricted use as a result of long term toxicology study.

1802 all is quiet

CCT245737 sits as a potential usable inhibitor for cancers. The difficulty l see here is the incombo therapy. Not as a therapy, but more to do with finance, ownership, patent and overall control.

CHK1 is not designed to kill cancer but to prevent cancer cell replication. 737 does this well.

Resistence of course will eventually happen.

Programmed death ligand inhibitors , monoclonal antibodies can recognise the cancer cell and destroy it. To such an extent at times that the bpdy can experience difficulty in removing the spent cells. Very effective.

We also have chemo that can destroy cancer cells but also more importantly create damage to the DNA.

Very effective in triple combo here albeit preclinical studies.

T Senn 2019 for further info as am sure you aware.

The real biggie sits with BBB CNS indications and we sit at a sweet spot here

A lot of work has been done and of course problems arise. This research someone else has paid for yet not resolved.

Optimisation of the molecules that have been realised to give meaniningful penetration of the BBB is required.

41p by AI now hiw much in 6 to 7 months?

In my opinion that is about the best post you have ever made Potnak. You have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Regarding AI.

It should in effect leave a handful of potential candidates. This should then result in formulated compounds that can be tried in preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies.

Did you manage to take a gander at Edison interview Sareum CNS (you tube) Oct 25?

Regarding the buying of the company for that CNS compound it is very feasible.

I would go as far as to suggest that July 24 when Tim demoted to COO this was the prime reason.

Who and where the advice to do this comes from nobody knows outside of the BoD.

Proof of concept is in effect all that is required

Maintaining the Isoform ie selectivity in the correct physical size being small enough to cross the 3 layered BBB yet large enough not to be neutralised by becoming attached and rendered ineffective by brain protein.

It is far from easy yet achievable.

We have after all designed and created a Tyk2 Jak1 inhibitor that so far has nigh equalled if not bettered the safety profile of an allosteric Tyk2 inhibitor. Now, due to this safety profile potentially allowing unrestricted dose limitations, efficacy in certain indications should prove vastly superior to that of current known competitors especially Breprocitinib.

A big call it is.

A timeline of 18 to 24 months from start to preclinical candidates with the assistance of AI is not out of the question.

Taking July 24 as a reference starting point we now sit at 19 months in.

In addition Sareum are neither new to Tyrosine kinase inhibitors or crossing the blood brain barrier as painstakingly took steps to prevent unwanted Jaks doing so in 1801.

Patents l feel would be applied for round about the same time as identification of suitable candidate to be put into clinical trial.

Sareum l feel would not be looking at applying for patent unless very high probability of success.

A big question of course is who or what is steering us? Who is at the helm? What is or has been offered in informal discussions?

Have we or are we in discussions with any of the major players?

The other bug bear of course is funding to enable development. Where will that come from?

Regards

Good morning LSBM.

A very pertinent reminder of a specialist US business development company support.

The US does tend to dominate the major US parmaceuticals.

Whilst it can be seen that there certainly does exist potential for a CHK1 inhibitor to be used in the clinic albeit in combotherapy, the bigger bucks can be made in breakthroughs into areas of serious unmet need. Not ruling 737 out!

BBB and CNS for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimers Disease. Similarities exist between these two with a difference of MS affecting yoinger people and AD affecting older people.

I would suggest that it is better to target a specific indication as opposed to a aim at broad spectrum.

1801 may well prove effective in SLE and trump the likes of Deucravacitinib, as indicated by the compound slides of indications showing believed pathway inhibitions inclusive of interferon gamma.

However, until long term toxicology, or to be more precise suitability for approved long term use with or without restrictions of our current Tyk2 Jak1 pipeline isoforms are proven all l believe will be quiet on this front.

It does seem that whilst Sareum can overcome what may be considered the most difficult of

tasks ie formulation of effective and safe SMKI 's it suffers in relatively simpler tasks such as applying for CTA or ensuring suitability of compound for animal testing. A tad of complacency comes to mind here.

In the past now. About time for good news rewarding those investors who have gone through tough times of horrendous delays, poor decisions, missed anticipated deadlines creating frustration negative market sentiment resulting in nigh 97% SP reduction from its peak.

Regards

Dosing underway will do me too Potters.

CNS and BBB maybe get an update.

If you have not seen the Edison Interview with John Reader and SP it is worth a look.

There are many hurdles and constraints here with a very narrow window to work within.

I do believe Sareum can pull.this one off.

They know they can create compounds that will not penetrate brain and some that will.

Yet here we have a problem as blood different to that of cerebal fluid.

Maintaining isoforms is key here ie sekectivity over and avoiding minimising effects of Jaks 2 and 3.

It certainly is a tough cookie to crack albeit not impossisble.

Any inkling of success here and l believe we will be snapped up. Irrespective of being early stage.

Regards

Good afternoon elcap.

If my memory serves me correct we RNS'd the first dosing of patient fur 1801 in phase 1 trial in OZ.

16 weeks is 16 weeks however we look at it.

I would go for notification if start of drug administrstion followed by a monthly or bimonthly update.

No confirmation or admission of the exact reason for failure here. However, l strongly suggest the excipient was not suitable for animal testing.

From my iwn point if vuew very little point in releasing an RNS to say we have just passed the point where the toxicology rtest was stopoed in the previous test.

Toxicities that can manifest in dogs that result in inflammation of the liver. Since the incidence of adverse events was greater in the non active formulation, then l woild suggest this is a great indication of the anyi inflammatory effects of 1801.

From my own point of view l am happy to continue adding at these prices.

Regards

Regarding continuing discussions.

Is that continuing discussions with potential partners that we are already in contact with?

Or is it more likely that it is discussions of the same type and agenda with completely new potential partners?

The February newsletter has achieved very little.

Wording like ' restarting!

All this means is restarting of the programme not an actual start of dosing.

Dosing to complete mid year (again an expectation) not even an anticipation.

Define mid year

Defined by some as from May to August in a 4 month period.

Defined by others as from June til end of August.

Attending the 2024 AGM and asking them when did they, as in Sareum expect to start Toxicology testing and the answer ftom Stephen P was a looking at early in the New Year.

My Christmas tree comes down early in the New Year. Even with a little bit of allowable project slippage time May 29th can hardly be looked at as early in the new year.

The only decent snippet of info is stating that they have been in regular discussions with regards to formulations and dosing with the CRO. Did they not do this last time?

No explanation as to who, how or what went wrong.

All down to communications or rather the lack of important, accurate and precise communications.

Beginning of September before we hear anything with regards to completion of this 4 month toxicology test l feel.

You can draw your own conclusions here regarding SRA737 CCT245737 or CHK1 inhibitor.

Dana Farber were the main research establishment for Sierra Oncology.

I suggest google ' Dana Farber and SRA737.'

Cant be 'arsed to go into depth' lpts more know more than l ever will.on here. Ha bl00dy ha.

Regards to most

If your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

Not been here as long as some but niw aporoaching 15 years.

Relax and have a beer. Many others you can chat to.

Have a super weekend!

Andy l will do as l like

It is not for you to tell me what to do.

Those with the so called knowledge perhaps you could give sime examples after all you have been here long enough.

With regards to the BoD l have been critical of Stephen Parker. Of course that did not fit well at the time.

Cant win some times.

The SP is controlled by market sentiment and not by what we have in the pipeline.

Regards

Good afternoon brizzlePaul.

'but you surely you have to admit that nothing has happened with 1802!! '

Why would l admit to something that is not true?

Did you not read the 9th December AGM RNS?

In this release it states that the translational studies have been completed.

That in my understanding is progress. So why is it you state nothing has happened?

Who here is claiming it is Rosey? Perhaps you could point them out to us.

Regarding the blood brain barrier RNS?

Nothing has been heard you say.

Work will be ongoing that is for sure.

Do you realise the amount of time and effort required to put potential preclinical candidates together.

Since you point to the initial RNS, have you seen the Oct 2nd Edison interview with John Reader and Steve Parker?

What is the significance of this not rosey claim?

No different to the significance as to those that think everyrhing is not rosey surely.

Personally l dont know anyone here who sees things totally rosey and that includes myself.

Regards

Most investors here had read it.

Much debate about terms and conditions to which Sareum had no input.

Why then make such riduculous comments with regards to your assumed and implied comments that Sareum were involved in the agreement?

So having not seen the licensing agreement you make comments without even knowing who the agreememt was between

Look though RNS around 2016 to 2017 as this will give you some insight.

Regards

Renember knowledge is power!

Dp64.

Have you actually read the licensing terms snd conditions in the orignal contract ?

You are very quiet DP64.

Good morning DP64.

Just a correction or two with regards to 737.

Where and when did this imaginative 'agreement ' take pkace between CRT and Sareum?

Sareum were never party or had any wsway in this matter as all Sareum had was a 27.5 financial interest.

I suggest you look through the relevent released RNS 's and fill your head with facts and not plain bs.

You can either produce reference to documented

data referring to your fabricated false information, or in the failure to, concede that you are nothing more than a negative antagonist.

With regards to the ' trio' just exactly what would you like them to do with regsrds to the current status of our pipeline at the moment?

I take it you are fully aware of the current status of

SDC1801, 1802 and investigsyion /early development of BBB and CNS indications.

For example can you educate me as to why Systemic Lupus Erothemotisis is a potentisl indication for SDC1801 yet Alzheimers Disease is not.

At what stages in a drugs development are values realised?

What is the purpose other than a legal requirement for a long term toxicology test?

I look forward to your reasonings in your reply.

Regards

The share is being manipulated. It is rife now in AIM.

A large fall is generated by some early largish sells.

At a point buys start to return.

Traders mostly that will jump on any share that falls with the expectation of making a profit on a small rise. Rinse and repeat.

It is this trading that is decimating not only this sgare but others on AIM. Similar antics similar people.

Does this activity prevent either 1801 going into phase2 trials or announcing candidates for BBB and CNS.

By the way neither SDC1801 or 1802 are suitable with regards to treatment of indications such as MS or AD.

SLE maybe.

And no l am not happy with the current SP. Far from it. But l continue to add and will have doubled my holding in the next few weeks /couple of months should prices move with downward pressure.

I realky cannot understand the mentality of an infividual that buts a share at 14p sells at 18 and then moans when the SP falls back again.

Not quite true as l can understand as they have an agenda.

We will very soon have 3 irons in the hure with regards to the growing arena of later generation Jak inhibitors.

Tyk2 is good

Tyk2 and Jak1 is better if little to no adverse effects.

We sit in this latter class.

I dont honestly believe we will be sitting in this position tgat we are in now, 4 weeks after cessation of tox study.

As much as dont like the current SP it is not crucial to a very rewarding takeover buyout and maybe a licence.

Enough from me.

OMT

Early yesterday the SP nudged 20p. RNS positive.

Trade of 100k from previous day post market closure was cancelled out. Is this not manipulating the markets?

Was this event the fault of Strphen Parker Tim Mitchell ir John Reader? No!

This pattern is not just restricted to SAR.

One thing for sure is negativity creates negativity and is the destroyer of achievement.

Jeez this board has filled up with negativity, animosity and misleading statements from both sides. All of benefit of course to those that attempt to manipulate the SP.

Put some sells in first thing to instigate a price fall.

It happens on most AIM sites. Even more so in crypto.

As for a HNWI stepping in, just what exactly are they going to do DP64? If they read your pusts must be suicidal! Never mind you have your agenda.

Half a dozen of us here combined have more shares than than a HNWI! Just saying.

With regards to compounds.

Neither SDC1801 or 1802 is effective as a brain penetrant!

We do have 3 compounds that indicate ability to penetrate the BBB. 1 very promising!

Three to 4 years at drug discovery /preclinical, but can be bought down as low as 12 months with assistance of AI. AI is most certainly not the be all an end all. It processes information and is only as good as the information fed into it.

I do hope it does not look here for info!

AI will reduce or to be more precise eliminate the majority of its predicted no shows.

Computational chemistry is very time consuming it involves quantum chemistry and as such difficult to predict with any degree of precision as looking at probability models and how the atoms and the binding strengths within molecules will bind to the intended target.

Hydrogen is basically the only isotope that can be nigh almost accurately predictable. Dueterium has greater binding affinity due to the additional mass of the neutron.

I digress.

Take onto account the type of compound. Are they lipophilic, hydrophilic or abrophilic?

How does this relate to cell penetration? Do compounds share these properties?

With BBB penetrants the drug needs to be deposited in the brain. Blood chemistry is not the same as cerebral fluid. If the molecule is too small it becomes ineffective as can attach to proteins.

It takes a long time to get right. 1 year minimum.

But bare in mind Tim has been COO now for dome time snd whilst we have assistance from AI to reduce timescsles it does not mean it reduces workload to the compound designers!

Looking at MS first it would appear.

The market untouched!

I would suggest that those that have not seen the Edison presentation from Oct 2nd? 2025 regardging Sareum and CNS developments take a look.

Those truly invested analyse the compounds that we have how they work and how they compare with our competitors.

We are under the radar

The likes of Pfizer with Breprocitinib would not want us to succeed.

A company looking to tap into the huge potential of SKI's in cetain indications such as MS and AD and the potential financial rewards will be interested in seeing us succeed.

Until a major development is made on BBB with regards to a CNS family of compounds or successful completion of tox trial which incidently is using the same batch of 1801 used for Phase 1a trials so no problem here with the active component. Excipient should be fine and maybe we

Https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/30/why-the-us-and-nato-have-long-wanted-russia-to-attack-ukraine/

' I didn't say the compound failed. The Tox study failed to reach it's primary endpoint'

What was the primary endpoint of the tox study Potters?

The toxicology study was stopped due to adverse events in the inactive compound.

This does not automatically mean failure to reach its endpoint!

Pedantic l am being, yes.

If you doubt what l am saying and that us clearly evident you doubt anything l say then consult an expert on the subject.

Message John Reader or Stephen Parker and ask them if 1801 failed to reach its endpoint.

As l said the study was stopped at an early moment in time.

Being stopped early is not conclusive evidence that the 1801 failed to reach its endpoint

The failure aspect was not completing the trial.

Now tell me in your infinite wisdom Potnak.

Can the excipient that failed in toxicolpgy study be used again in humans?

Should the excipient prove OK in animal testing then why not use this on humans.

Bare in mind that there exists room to tweak the excipient. One problem to overcome is the incease in doseage of the active ingredient in a capsule. This has already been stated

The importance of this is to allow once a day dosing and also gives rise to increased dosing capability.

Both aspects of which are highly advantageous and further increases the gap between us and the likes of Breprocitinib. We already are head and shoulders above Breprocitinib.

Have a great day

Regards

A long read, very long read of compounds and inhibitors and binding affinity.

I gave up last night after about 90 mins.

But there is relative info on there which suggests the difficulties we may face with new compound and timescales.

Suggest skip through a lot if it.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12412618/

Good morning PC1954.

With regards to your post @ 23.16.

My humble apologies asi t looks like you have taken my post completely the wrong way.

Do l think you do not know Tim is no longer CEO ?

The answer to that is a resounding, no!

I would not have thought reiterating Tims current postion would have caused such upset.

Correct me if l am wrong but you stated

' In nutshell if TM is carrying out the work as you state, why isn’t he presenting/explaining his work to shareholders'

I repied with

'Tim is no longer CEO he is COO and l dare say it is Stephen Parker who decides who says what."

I think there has been a slight misinterpretation on both sides.

"it’s just my view, that he doesn’t seem a very active part of Sareum - when and what was his last “official” statement (excluding reading the financials)?"

You have put 'active part' and in that aspect l have misnterpreted as having important contributory

role. I certainly would agree that taking the term 'active roll ' in the context of involvement in controlling the company then you are 100 correct.

The point l did not put across very well is my understanding of Tims current role.

My understanding is that of development potential with Jak inhibitor to penetrate the blood brain barrier for treating ilnesses with respect to the Central Nervous System

It is very easy to underestimate the complexity of issues and time consuming research is involved to produce something that would fail, have mediocre efficacy caused by dose limiting toxicities.

AI is not the 'be all" or ' end all" as some people may think. It certainly is vital in reducing the time to pyiduce a candidate. Al is also open to making mistakes.

Binfing affinity Kd is important eith respect to how long it remains stta hed to a docking site.

It is complex and cannot just be left for AI to get on with. CommunIcation between AI and human intervention is absolutely crucial. As such l would conclude that this will easily consume Tims resources of time concentration and energy.

No big deal here.

The majority of the post can appear as if aimed at you which it was not. The majority was aimed at 'up one minute down the next Potnak".

Please accept my apologies for what l fhould have created 2 posts for.

One final thing before l leave off

' I could pull your post to pieces, no need to as it doesn’t really tell me anything as nonsensical in its content and just your perceived assumptions'

Feel free and go ahead. I await your reply.

Regards to all

If it was a failure Potnak why are they using the same SDzc1801 kinase inhibitor?

You really are out of your depth