Member Info for sadoldgit

Lsesar,

Did you sell out when this spiked to 48p?

What happened to the 10 % down and 12% up and 100% rise on news posting?

Now you are finding fault with the long term holders. Learn from their mistakes you say. Judging by the content of your posting,all of the LTH here know considerably more than you do.

This board has been inundated with new posters over the past several years that have claimed to have been invested here years.

I care not whether you are long or short term investor. It us your perogative to buy and sell and as you wish. But l do get a tad peeved at people who knock other people's choice as to when they should have sold.

There is no factual evidence to indicate that you have been invested here more than a couple of months.

The long term holders on here do have a degree of respect on here for each other despite a few little disagreements.

As l say we all have our own strategy so try not to find fault.

Regards

Https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jak-inhibitors-market-surges-autoimmune-121800212.html

Have posted before but the link indicates the areas and competition that we face.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9959504/

Interesting link below. Good for overview

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/baricitinib-market-global-outlook-forecast-2022-2028-share/

Unfortunately it does not give any indication of dollar revenues.

In a separate link.

Deucravacitinib generated 66 million dollars in the last quarter of 2023. 62 million of this was in the US.

This equates to approx 250 million dollars a year, not bad for an inhibitor that can be bettered in efficacy for Psoriasis and duly failed to meet either of its 2 end points in Ulcerative Colitus

It is very difficult to try to establish any ball park figure of a potential value for 1801 as we need some idea of potential Indications.

We should be able to better Baricitinib in at least regards to SAE's

Interesting also to note that Baricitinib was also hailed as the first and only kinase inhibitor NDA approval for covid19.

Regards

Good post HbD,

I would like to think an RNS to be released by the end of June.

If an RNS is not released it will be the only month over the past year than an RNS has not been released.

Last month that an RNS was not released was July 23.

Missed a high of 4 pound 50 a share and a low of 10p.

245737 returned

The inability of the MHRA to authorise clinical trial for SDC1801.

Sdc1801 phase1 trial approved in Down Under,

Pi55 poor finance last year resulting in downward pressure giving a 90% drop.

Share holders raised funds.

Price crept back up from the low of 10p

Phase1a trial completed expecting good date expected by Sareum end Q2.

Gradual erosion of Sp whilst waiting for news at the moment.

Apart from that not much at all.

Regards and welcome back.

Woodlands that should have read, apologies.

Easily done Woidlands we have all fallen for it.

Regards

Woodlands, yes but you help here by replying with subject of Another placing !

No requirement then for another placing.

Of course shares can go up and down and that is stating the obvious.

However he is also stating what he thinks may happen on the receipt of a poor phase1 trial RNS.

That is not quite the same.

At the moment he is not invested.

Krustysmegma,

I am inclined to agree with you very strongly. Perhaps it is not the most ill informed, but contrived yo serve a purpose.

What is the posters objective for posting such a post.

Primarily he has no shares at the moment and yet states it will buy back if the news is good.

However, which way we look at it, it is somebody who intends to buy back in.

On the release of good news this individual will need to be quick as will rise like a rocket.

As for any bad news, I ask the question on what factual or indeed basis of debate postulate that we may recieve bad news?

What would be the cause?

Tim and Co extremely confident of good results.

Mentions of best in class.

Very good at chemistry they are. Very experienced. I would definitely take that as a very positive indication, as to the success of 1801 data results, over and above the unsubstantiated drivel posted here..

Regards

I certainly can't disagree with the good strategic planning.

Without wishing to appear overly blunt the BoD cannot see past the end of their noses. Add a splash of naivety and hey ho we were in a severe mess, nigh right up 5hit street Without a paddle.

Now fortunately we are recovering

Clearly the BoD have not looked far enough into the future. Have coped before in a buoyant market but from Feb 22 difficulties with financing rose.

On the plus side we don't appear to have any problems with adverse events.

The only indication we have at the moment is Psoriasis. Should be able to better Deucravacitinib in the PASI 75 score.

Looking at achieving better score over 12 weeks than Deucravacitinib over 16 weeks, with of course similar tolerability and safety profile.

This is about all we can say we nigh have under the belt at the moment.

Finance of some sort will be needed and Sareum look to be pursuing non dilutive means.

Phase 1 results will see a rise in my opinion. Accessing likely non dilutive funding and details therefore will at the very least maintain SP climb until further positive news.

On no news of non dilutive funding the SP likely to follow the trajectory that has occurred in the past and a slow retrace.

My own opinions of course.

There is a lot l believe going on which the BoD either can't or won't let on.

The good old days of the transformational change that did no quite materialise where the Sp dropped around 60 % max on the day.

Tim got slated for this hence now there exists silence.

Regards

Psoriasis Deucravacitinib is available as a treatment on the NHS it is also available to purchase.

Potnak you are not very scientific, or have any scientific understanding which is confirmed by the gibberish you write at times.

You state one moment that we all need to understand that there is a 75% failure rate in Phase 1 trial, based on something you seemed to have read. Then you follow up with you seemed to remember reading about 75% of drugs never get past phase 1.

Without wishing to appear pedantic which of the two statements you made are true.

You based your first statement as fact. The 75% failure rate in phase1.

This is clearly incorrect as l have pointed out and given guidance for further info to peruse.

As for not going to read it all? Why not?

All you in effect do is feed the negative numpties over on ADVN with a source to undermine.

I have never picked on a poster that has demonstrated even the slightest scientific knowledge.

I did an OU Science degree many moons ago, I worked in engineering in the early part of my career.

At the age of 24 l was a field service engineer installing, repairing and retrofitting corrugated cardboard manufacturing equipment weighing anything up to 200 tonnes.

I worked nigh 3 years on research and development in engineering.

An enjoyable at times job but difficult when on your own.

99% of any investigational work carried out is down to precision and accuracy. Each individual component needs an understanding of its strong points and weak points.

Almost good enough is never good enough, hence failure.

There is no intention from me to stamp my superior knowledge on anybody.

What l will do is challenge statements that are not only false and misleading but also unsubstantiated with no proper resource to back it up.

With regards to not posting anything negative, l will be diplomatic and say you have not posted anything positive either.

My opinion for what it is, is that you are trading at the moment. I have nothing against this.

What l am against is up and down posting. One minute pointing out 1 to 2 billion company value at one time then introduce 75% risk of failure on the other hand.

You sir, are unbalanced to say the least.

I am 100% certain in the belief that the outcome will prove satisfactory for further trial such as phase2a, what l am not 100% certain about is the full scope of side effects or the full data results of biomarkers.

These will have significant effects as to the value of SDC1801.

Regards and enjoy a couple of days off.

Are you suggesting that your three quarters of drugs statement never get past phase 1 on something you claim to have read?

Have you mis understood this or misinterpreted this?

Science is very precise.

It may well be that a vast majority of drugs fail in preclinical stage. Well they do about a third of. Did your source if information that you read take this into account?

Around a third and a third is taken as a model here to work from. There are indeed variance in different areas of medical treatment.

We then have the drugs that have passed preclinical and enter phase 1.

As an example:-

100 compounds enter preclinical

66 pass

Now 2 thirds of these will pass phase 1

Two thirds of 66 is 44.

So out of the original hundred or so compounds that enter preclinical 44 go on to pass phase1.

Two thirds of these statistically fail in phase2

One third of 44 around 15

We now have from the original 100 compounds 15 that enter phase 3.

1 in 3 statistically will fail.

That leaves around 10 from our original 100 that have made it.

Around 90% chance of success of clinical approval use and commercialisation.

From original 100 that enters preclinical 9 will reach commercialisation

Approximately 1 in 11 or the given 90% failure rate quoted from many sources.

I will add that statistics being accurate if we use them correctly ,(99.9% of people do not) they cannot individually predict who will succeed and who will fail.

All it tells us is that 90% of drugs produced from the start will never reach commercialisation.

It does not indicate as to why it should pass or why it should fail. It is after all a mathematical model that takes events that have happened in the past to predict the future.

One thing l have learned is that attention to detail more often than not pays off.

Regards.

Single ascending dose :- no reported serious adverse events

Multiple ascending dose :- no reported serious adverse events.

Effectively what we are waiting for is the final data analysis results pointing out any undue side effects.

As long as these are minimal then we have absolutely no problems. There will be some, but not get alarmed by. Decravacitinib is certainly not without known side effects and has no black box warnings.

Effectively it is ecoming apparent that due to the absence or virtual non existence of reported serious adverse events with kinase inhibitors that are Tyk2 selective over Jak 1, 2 and 3 then we will at some not too distant time in the future replace the ageing first generation jakis with later generation inhibitors with Tyk2 bias.

It is a highly competitive and dare l say corrupt area of business. Just like banking, military weapons and production thereof which involves hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

There will be underhanded tactics, not every criminal is in jail, especially not the legalised or privileged ones who hold high office and even higher incomes.

Regards

Unfortunately it does not quite work like that tricky.

It would be good if it did.

Regards

Potnak, not sure how you base your stated 75% failure rate in Phase 1a trial.

My understanding is of around 66% success rate in Phase 1. Highest failure rates are in Phase 2 at around 66%.

Phase 3 have around 66% chance of success and around 85% success rate for NDA approval.

The link below although not exactly tieing in with my figures is however in the ballpark and fairly descriptive.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6226120/#:~:text=The%20success%20rate%20of%20each%20drug%20discovery%20stage%20in%20academia,87.5%25%20for%20NDA%20and%20BLA.

Regards

Funny Guy on what factual basis do you make such absurd statements.

What has notification of the on licensee to do with SRA737 advancement.

As for 182 it does not exist.

1801 we await final data analysis results. Could be tomorrow next week or next month. Bit it will come and the Indications are it will prove successful.

SDC1802 whilst being developed in preclinical stage for oncology there have been recent patent applications for 1802 to be used as am immunotherapy. Clearly there is significant benefit here.

If you doubt this then please provide satisfactory evidence to substantiate your statement.

Next thing you will be stating is this will be going down to 10p again as you have proven history of.

Regards

Good evening HbD,

There was another that did not make sense at the time.

My own opinion is that it were scuppered.

Sierra Oncology stated at the time.e that 737 could prove more commercially viable than Momoletonib.

Developments and then silence. Then we here takeover by GSK.

A year later they hand it back most likely as of the clause within contract requiring return of 737 if no developments in a 12 month period.

Basically they strung it along from the end of 2019 to end of 2022.

3 years!

GSK would certainly not want a competitor to have it as would pose a serious threat to the drugs that were the Tesaro pipeline they paid 5.1 billion for a year earlier.

It will come out one day.

GSK paid billions before due to mal practices.

I have posted much on this subject before.