Member Info for solow

I didn´t see any tecnical progress in that announcement. More an operational update. More smoke I guess. Do we know yet whether the four components all work together to get the proton to the 250MeV?

In reply to Digitt´s question as to the success rate of pre-clinical drugs, I have found this article from Reuters. Seems general success rate is 1 in 10 across the board, dropping to 1 in 20 for oncology. Better odds than I thought, but not an all eggs in one basket investment for me. As always dyor.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pharmaceuticals-success-idUSTRE71D2U920110214

On the face of it a pleasant enough RNS. However, as far as I am concerned none of this matters until they have a machine.

So, I read and re-read the part of the RNS that states "All the accelerating structures required for accelerating protons to their maximal energy have now been manufactured." and further along "all these components have been commissioned, tested as part of our verification and validation process and assembled at our assembly site at the Science and Technology Facilities Council ("STFC") Daresbury Laboratory, UK".

It is tempting to take from the above that they have a fully tested machine. Except they haven´t actually said they do. They also said they have all the components ready to take the proton to 230 MeV. Except not together and not at the same time.

All this talk from them about this being a proven technology and that the main technological risk was with the proton generator, which they now of course have, makes the issue so much more stark. Why are all the timescales for this machine so far behind. And please dont blame Covid.

It seems clear to me that they are as always being deliberately vague about this and not admitting that there is a problem with the machine. How they get anyone to invest is another question.

I respect the opinions of Goez. They are a genuinely independent research house as opposed to Hardman who cough up anything you pay them to. Strange this wasn't published as an RNS. But I still wonder why if the technology is so de-risked, the company hasn't communicated this.

CuriousInvester, there are absolutely many positives in the past few years. Easy funding on favourable terms, Good tech progress as well. But when the BOD isn't being truthful, they should be called out that's all.

Hardman research is paid for propaganda so best avoided. Please don't base your investment decisions on any opinions they may express. The company is most certainly not on track with progress.

I was wondering the same. Why would a company sign this type of agreement with an unproven tech that doesn't even produce the full speed beam. I suspect the hospital company will have an opt out after one year or so if the tech doesn't progress. So for them essentially this agreement is meaningless and non-binding. With some free PR. Also probably this is the hospital group's only real option to install proton therapy for space and finance reasons. So no time would be lost. Who knows what goes on but I know the AVO BOD go to great lengths to bump the share price up. Not such great lengths when being truthful with investors!

PM44, I'm not new to AIM or to investing for that matter. What you should bear in mind it seems is that riskier companies should be questioned more annd held more to account. You say you aren't too worried about reasonable delays. And neither would I be. However, I don't see anything reasonable about a 6 year delay and I would read with interest any explanation you have for this.

Curious, I am not shorting this stock. I am a shreholder and ask out of genuine interest as to whether to invest more. I have concerns that there is a genuine problem with this machine. I say this because I recently watched Michael Sinclair in his 2013 youtube video confindently declaring that the machine was by then a third of the way to completion and would be halfway to completion by 2014 and within 2 years hopefully ready for first patient treatment. Now this is all water under the bridge and things have changed since. But not the machine. It is the same machine and that same machine is still stuck at 52 MeV. Michael Sinclair says in his 2013 video that getting from 52MV to 250MeV was just a question of putting more components together. Clearly for me this isn't the case. This to me is a six year delay and no progress has been made since 2013 and the company has offered no explanation for this. If someone else can, I would be greatful for what I am missing.

Well in March 2017 they had the machine being tested to 230 MeV starting by Thale in Q1 2018. Which gave the company two and half year to test, install and commission the machine before first patient treatment in July 2020. Now the company is cramming all this into 1 year according to the latest timeline. So of course they won't move the 2020 deadline but if you take the 2017 timeline from where we are now, I see mid 2021 earliest. Which means they have slipped a year.

Curious, the timeline I have as per the Hardman research paper of 15th March 2017, is for the first patient treatment to be in the middle of 2020. So I am interested why you think that same presentation shows first patient treatment as end 2020? The company won't send out the original presentation but the timeline is presented in the Hardman paper. This shows clearly that the timeline has slipped by 6 months. Yet the company maintains that development in on schedule. Go figure.

Actually the system doesn't know whether a trade is a buy or a sell. It simply decides based on the price. If the trade price is below the mid-price, the system identifies the trade as a sell and vice versa. When the trade price is exactly mid way, the system can't tell. In fact, I have put through trades where the system has incorrectly marked as a buy or sell because my broker has gotten me either a good buy price below the mid or vice versa. So not all trades are market correctly. Hope that helps!

Is this normal for a start up mining company to make so many mistakes?