Member Info for Scinv_temp

Moniman you are so daft you don't even realise this is not positive for us. We run the trials on healthy volunteers and the bottleneck there is not having ongoing (obviously) but also not having recent infections with the pathogen a vaccine is tested against since that interferes with the readouta. Basically your iq of about 4 can only handle cheerleading and "covid logic" that was repevant 2 years ago. I think this is a solid company and I expect steady rise over the next 2 years, but cheerleading and flawed logic can only backfire. Happy new year all.

Just for the sake of completeness, *as long as they show earlt signs of reach or exceeding their revenue target for 2023

Many cos got crazy valuations due to covid, including this one. But that doesn't mean it isn't a solid company. Still it is going to take some time to see 36p again, on a realistic basis. Still 20p+ is feasible in 2023 on a realistic basis.

Oh. I though I was on hvo board. *giggles*

Polb is a dumbsterfire and way overvalued

Ie it is already undervalued and that's strict.
I also expect over 20% ebitda margin next over due to increased number of contracts and lower overhead

Lmao. Due diligence is your friend. Clowns who lie about their pension plans aren't.

"It's a great company"

Lmao.

Based on what? A science based company with 0 public data. So howndo you make this assessment?

As always, put your money where your mouth is and buy shares.

Machine identified potential unvalidated targets = breakthrough.

Does anyone else here have any experience at all in this field?

Well, you (or anyone else) did not invest in my motives, so who cares? You invested in this company and what I am merely saying is that it is unlikely you will see actual pharma being involved next year (as in paying the co and promising royalties for future success) with what they have done so far and what is likely they'll do in the next period. This involves their AI projects, the glp-1 project and also the polb001 project, that that has slightly more chances than he other 2. Unless of course you are saying you weren't expecting that for next year, in which case I apologise for stating the obvious.

I am sharply focused on the progress of the co actually

It isn't meant to prevent pandemics, it is mesnt to prevent ards and related complications.

And about the glp-1 project, they don't have a product, they have a license from an Irish company that sells product for the "alternative" "health" and nutrition market. And not a single data point shown for it.

About they hvo data relating to respiratory progression, they don't own that and it remains to be seen if any of these potential target get validated in pre clinical studies.

Cheerleading is not a good way to keep track of your investments imho

*and/or funding

By the way, pharma doesn't typically do validation of drug targets as a collaboration with 3rd parties . That means next step is either doing an academic collaboration with a lab for validation (in return for royalties and/funding) or paying a cro to do said validation. That means its unlikely you'll see actual pharma involved in any of their target discovery projects next year, which is what you expect, isn't it?

And I am twlling you this flag is laughable

Even a tiny academic lab would reluctant to issue an announcement that they identified targets without any validation data or publication to go with it. Laughable.

I was talking more in reference to disease in motion and some other nonsense that were subsequently spun off to polb. Interesting story though about past presentations of CF. I am a DD person, applying that in the drug discovery/development sector professionally for many years and I only had to listen to CF once to immediately dislike his style. I mean the guy is obvious.
I am happy that someone else is managing hvo now but I am a bit worried whether he still can impair to some extent the services that hvo can provide with his spin offs. Viralpredict at polb in particular (as they allude to what it is) would be a perfect fit for hvo and what worries me is whether this is limiting hvo in providing additional useful readouts from their challenge studies.

Delusions of grandeur that OO would become an incubator co but without the funds to pull it off. The only (advertised, no data that I havr seen) platform that is worth developing is viralpredict which makes perfect sense and assigning that to polb was a stup1d

Cash commited on what I think is nonsense. Ie, not for long.

Hvo at around £120M, for now.