Member Info for Seancadman

Great to hear gtc, sounds like everything is still very much on track.

Getting the NCI deal across the line surely has to be the catalyst for Fusions future.

Once the deal is finalised, whatever the monetary value, Fusions can say, ‘One of the world’s leading cancer research organisations has tested this platform and decided to keep using it.’

‘NCI continues to use OptiMAL across multiple projects and targets.’

OptiMAL is becoming embedded in their workflow before a commercial agreement is even finalised.

Once they can go to the market and announce that one of the worlds biggest cancer research organisations has tested OptiMal and has now adopted it as their primary platform Pharma will have to take notice.

OptiMAL will have crossed from validation to commercialisation.

Interesting that NCI is being referenced by the CSO at AACR. Suggests the relationship is still very much active.

Rocka, you do know that Adrian reads this board from time to time don’t you?

NCI will almost certainly be there, it has a large presence there every year because it funds and runs a lot of Cancer research programs.

Face to face meetings are always more productive than emails.

A meeting between the 2 must be on the cards.

I’m happy to address your unsubstantiated claims Rocka.

Three months really isn’t a long time in biotech or pharma platform adoption. The company said at launch that discussions and evaluations would take months, not weeks. They’ve already stated there was strong initial interest, NDAs signed, and a pipeline of potential projects.

On top of that, the collaboration with the National Cancer Institute validated the performance of OptiMAL, and negotiations are ongoing to allow them to continue using it as a front-line discovery method.

Silence doesn’t necessarily mean nothing is happening — it often just means discussions are under NDA and haven’t reached RNS stage yet.

You really aren’t very good at deramping for your own gains Rocka, on the one hand claiming to own a substantial holding and on the other stating the company will be bust within a year, anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see that you have sold and are attempting to talk the price down to get back in.

The fact they emphasise a one-off payment and revenue recognition this year suggests it’s likely a straight sale of that background IP, with Fusion continuing to earn fee-for-service work as the antibody is humanised and developed.

Agree with you though — it’s a non-core legacy asset that most people didn’t even realise was sitting there, so £250k dropping into this year plus potential future project work is a decent outcome either way.

I agree. The timelines around the NCI extension were always likely to be measured in months rather than weeks – particularly when you factor in negotiation of commercial terms, legal drafting and the NIH approval process. Mid-April onwards for any update never seemed unrealistic to me.

It’s also worth remembering that the company has already said the NCI collaboration validated the platform and that OptiMAL performed in line with or exceeding the parameters they set. On top of that, they’ve indicated strong initial interest following the launch, signed NDAs with potential partners and previously referenced a pipeline of opportunities. All of that suggests engagement is happening behind the scenes even if it can’t be discussed in detail.

Silence in these situations is simply the result of NDAs and ongoing negotiations rather than a lack of progress. Until something is contractually agreed there’s very little they can say without breaching confidentiality or AIM rules.

The frustration is deafening, there is a general disquiet among shareholders, OptiMal was launched and the excitement from the company was plain to see, since then there has been very little in terms of updates, there maybe very little they can say, there may be a lot of work going on in the background but as has been stated there are NDAs in place so Fusion’s hands are tied, AIM rules dictate what they can release, they cant issue ‘news’ to support the share price, regulators expect them to release facts not just commentary on market movements.

That’s said, something positive from the company would quell the nervousness.

Appreciate NDAs will limit specifics, but a general progress update on OptiMAL interest since launch would be welcome.

Even high-level commentary can help shareholders understand how things are developing.

That slide also compared library size.

OptiMal has a library size of 10 to the 9th compared to competitors 10 to the 5th/8th.

This matters because antibody discovery is basically a numbers game, the larger the library the greater the chance of finding high affinity antibodies.

So early 2026, I interpreted that as some time in January and then several further months.

That is difficult to interpret but I would say we are getting to the point of several further months, so that negotiation should be nearing its end.

News on NCI/NIH deal is now expected.

I note one ‘shareholder’ has posted 25 out of the 66 in total today.

That’s nearly 40% of the total.

Repeating the same arguments over and over.

Ignoring counterpoints.

Focusing only on negatives.

Posting far more frequently than others.

Clearly an attempt to distort sentiment.

It's unusual for someone who claims to hold shares to spend the entire day posting dozens of negative comments about their own investment.

A balanced discussion is healthy, but when one account is posting 25 out of 66 comments and all of them are negative it starts to look more like an agenda than a debate.

Enjoying the fact that Rocka’s attempt at being negative is bringing out all the positives!

I would love to see your calculations on how £8m revenue including £4m from OptiMal wouldn’t produce a profit, especially considering it has been stated OptiMal revenue will produce a very high margin.

You're right that high affinity alone doesn't guarantee a therapeutic antibody - nobody in antibody discovery would claim that it does.

But that's also not the purpose of OptiMAL. It's a discovery platform designed to generate candidate antibodies, not finished drugs. Issues like developability, specificity and

immunogenicity are part of the downstream screening process that pharma companies routinely carry out after initial binders are identified.

The relevant point is that the platform has already produced strong binders against multiple targets and the National Cancer Institute reported that it was "performing very well in our hands". That suggests it's doing the job a discovery platform is supposed to do - generating viable starting antibodies.

Whether those ultimately progress into therapeutics will depend on the partners developing them, but that's how the antibody discovery industry works across the board.

Rocka let’s agree to disagree, it’s Saturday, the markets are closed time to enjoy the weekend.

You're entitled to your view, but a few of the points you're making aren't really factual.

The company has been very clear that commercialisation of OptiMAL would take months, not weeks. The platform only launched in December and they confirmed NDAs with pharma in January, so expecting multiple deals already doesn't match the timeline they themselves set.

Also, the technology has already been independently evaluated by the US National Cancer Institute, who said the platform was

"performing very well in our hands" and that they isolated binders for multiple cancer antigens.

That's not something companies can simply make up.

Whether OptiMAL ultimately succeeds commercially is still to be proven, but saying there is "nothing special about it" ignores the fact that it has already produced strong affinity antibodies and attracted interest from external groups.

Everyone has to make their own investment decision, but it's better to debate the facts.

He already has, looking to push the price down to buy back in.

Yes they had interest from parties before launch, but negotiations weren’t started until after launch, that was the whole point of the launch, they even stated in a recent RNS that NDAs had been signed with interested Pharma AFTER LAUNCH,

the process therefore started once the NDAs had been signed.

I understand your frustration, we would all like news and I’m sure the company will announce as soon as they have it.

Rocka let’s not get personal, insulting the CEO.

Expecting contracts to be 'rolling in' three months after a formal launch isn't how pharma BD works.

First there's technical evaluation, then internal review, then procurement, then legal.

It’s a very thorough process.

Can you point to a comparable antibody discovery platform that launched and had multiple pharma contracts signed within three months? That would validate your argument.

Being realistic cuts both ways. The company has repeatedly said negotiations and formal approvals would take months - particularly with NIH involved - so the current timeline isn't outside what they guided. Saying 'we should have heard something by now' is opinion, not fact.