Member Info for Techtonic

Hi again Green..I've had a re-read and think.

Imo, with voluntarily or involuntarily confirmation bias, you’re giving Ciz lots of leg room, maybe shifting your own views a tad to fit the prevailing info (ala shifting sands I mentioned - you may not realise you’re doing it)

We were all extremely happy with “in the market in the near future” and gave it weight; now you’re retrospectively putting “context” on it and giving AS lots of leeway ( although bio-tech timelines are different to real world). However, you can’t have it both ways to fit shifting disclosures by Ciz.

Reagents - your take on it is “refinements”, but that is not evidentiary based, just giving them the benefit. Refinements to me means - in context of “clinical trials being done”, it DIDN’T work. I’m surmising here, but I think the sensitivity data on scale-up was poor. You can’t assume by changing the source that this will improve. It could be an intrinsic problem. (It may not be - but you’re assuming to the positive - of it purely being “Comms”. “Reading too much into it” is a subjective feeling.

China - something that was once pivotal, almost a Raison D’etre for some , is now “couldn’t care about China”.

Now, I completely understand that you don’t care about China, but a cohort on here (Jace et al) used this to prove-up their £££s valuation with £100Millions/ year.

The (possible) loss of China reveals something not simply of monetary value itself but the institutional naivety of Ciz. They spent so much time developing that ‘relationship”, flawed from the start IMO (got to understand Chinese mentality). Now it’ not a deal, but that’ ok??

This, in itself reveals the weakness and possible gullible nature of the BOD.

All these things cannot and shouldn’t be taken in isolation; they build a picture.

It’s the investor who has to try to see that picture clearly, without bias. Hard when money is invested in something you want to succeed.

But ,again, the most important element is that if you cannot trust what they're saying, how do you ever trust what they're saying??

Green, thanks v much. On first reading fair points, but will read again, digest and reflect

Neil, I sincerely enjoy your excellent intelligent posts and admire the time dedicated, but I wonder if you’ve lost objectivity?

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force.. leads to self-justification in the best of us. That shifting sand analogy I used can carry investors to a place they don’t recognise without awareness of change.

So, serious questions, if I may:

Could you please explain your thinking behind “believing’ in the final outcome when:

1) Allan Syms with “market in near future” quote was either naive, optimistic or willingly deceptive. (Any one of those is bad trait for a leader of empirical science).

2) Last year he said we were about to start clinical trials, but this was patently false. (Again, deceptive, naive or optimistic)

3) The Portugese reagent company - supposedly the best - is out of the picture (with no RNS) and a French company ‘suddenly’ involved. (With no RNS).

The obvious conclusion is there’s probably been problems (of nature unknown). That’s a fair assumption, no? (Again, no communication from CEO, so assume negatives)

4) With Reagents not even verified at scale-up - and clinical trials posing another unknown, the permutations are unknown. Where is the foundation for staunchly standing by your ‘belief’?

5) Is Biotechne still involved..to what degree? Ciz is so shoddy with communication, anything could be going on.

Most people - me included - wanted a bigger tie-in with Biotechne. It hasn’t happened.

6) China no longer in the picture it seems. I think my first post I warned of this to much derision. Why? - again NO update from BOD. Nada! Investors seem happy to go along like it’s all fine!

Blinkers off, people !! It’s huge and, indeed, the main Market reason some people invested! The Avuncular cuddly AS probably eaten alive over there.

7) Not using drawdown. Not selling CDT shares. Probably mates rates for a raise. Awful - again. Trust?

8) Don’t you agree that the direction has appeared to have changed? The tone? Material things? Timescales?

Without knowing the full context / picture, how can you remain confident with duff data and disingenuous company statements. I don’t understand the basis of your belief, apart from “It will all be ok in the end”…which isn’t an argument based on the facts.

One of the main rules of investing - divesting - to me is simple:

When companies start lying/ being liberal with truth on promises/ timescales and progress, it's usually time to , at the very least, question your investment, or get out.

The awfully nice Allan Syms does not impress me, and after that shocking RNS plus the antecedence regarding communication with Ciz, I no longer understand my investment.

Do you? Really?

Ps Brondby/ Green especially. Also love your thoughtful posts.

For transparency, I sold 2/3 of my holdings after that diabolical RNS at 10% loss yesterday. That RNS was the pits. Very disappointed.

I’ll keep 1/3 and assess

"Spokesman"... I did mean for shareholders, not the company.

Sick of my own voice, a sentiment I'm sure is widely acknowledged, Amen. So will give you all a few days off from my blather after this.

Hogbog - I think it's what Allan Syms didn't say that's alarming...and some fundamental changes.

Ie "On 10 August 2023 the Group announced an expansion of its research programme...this followed significant further progress in isolating additional new and specific monoclonal antibodies to the CIZ1B biomarker and incorporating these into a new high-throughput clinical diagnostic immunoassay platform. The recent developments meet key milestones to begin commercial clinical trials."

This was said in August. Imminent.

Today we are maybe weeks or months away from this.

There has definitely been a significant change in tone and content in yesterday 's RNS.

Clarity needed.

And for me, the pub needed.

Hope everyone stays safe and well and will keep looking in until my next random rant.

Good luck all.

But

Radio blackout for nearly 2 years is pretty awful in my book, and doesn't equate with a need for constant updates - just the usual regular ones which should be RNS'd.

Don't think this adds anything but just out of interest on radio silence.

Bill Behnke has NDAs and confidentiality agreements in place regarding CIZ...

Although this doesn't seem to apply to his tweets!

554 days that's an incredibly long time with news blackout. Awful.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Neil acted as spokesman and go between at that point?

Seems like the company has form then. It's not great.

Exactly DD77.

What the company is doing is selectively deciding what news we should hear, because they want to control the share price.

That isn't what they should be doing (legally). They should be issuing news as and when it is relevant.

You're right though; I have been whining a lot. Too much.

I can take a loss - you have to in this game. But I don't like it when goal posts change so much we don't know what we're invested in really.

Daily Mail health /business section would most likely do a story on stage 1 lung cancer detection test.

I don't know why the board are so reluctant to get the information out there. They feel that it will spike the share price.

So what?! What they've done already has spiked the share price downwards Bd killed confidence . I'd be getting the story out there ASAP.

I've no control over whether they do it or not as a story , but it's a great story (if true!)

Hey Cheesy..cheddar, Cheshire or edam?

Fair enough...although Ciz is not Aim.

Don't have any mates on the Daily Mail apart from one - and politics definitely not in my camp.

Anyway, regarding Ciz, it depends what game you're talking about.

I think it's fair enough for shareholders to hold the board to account especially if they're telling porkies...no?

At the very least let's have some genuine information out there with RNS'

Not on the wages they pay

As I alluded to yesterday, please do your jobs within the rules, or my former colleague on the Daily Mail will print something regardless.

And you have no control over this.

I know you both read the boards.

Genuine time-frames please , why new reagents in France, why no RNS' and no more BullSh** treating Pis like fodder.

Ps Chrishutch.. yes there will be the inevitable rise to let out the 2pencers.

If there is no TR1 of value this is a simple flip for profit raise.

Jace I hope you haven't cancelled me. It's good to talk - and even better to sometimes hear unpalatable things.

I completely concur with your sentiments regarding PR.

Green .

Thanks for emailing them, I've spoken to Tim in the last few weeks. But maybe after yesterday it's not the right time!

However your email is good. However , I'm thinking this company is full of it

They KNOW what material news looks like.

They KNOW that Allan Syms was saying one thing in public last year and has done a complete volteface.

I think I would have been a little bit blunter with the mail, but probably better to keep them onside

However the basic question is what you've outlined.

Why were they saying something so definitely last year and that's totally changed this year.

And why have none of these changes been RNSd.

Definite and massive blow to trust in this company, and I think we are all more in the dark now than we have ever been

You make fair points , under the circumstances Widglide.

Neil - on further thoughts , apologies to you if I appeared disrespectful in the fracas yesterday. Definitely no harm intended, but will try harder.

Neil , you say "will hold off on my opinion of what is happening until more is known.

For what it is worth to anyone, i still have every share, and will hold for what i believe (no timescales ) will be a successful outcome."

Surely that is cognitive dissonance working. How can you say you will owe to a "successful outcome" when you can no longer trust the investment and what they are saying?

My main concerns questions

1) Sensitivity en-scale. Just when is commercialized launch in the US planned? (Very near term was definitively bull)

2) Fundraising. Why no drawdown at 2.1p? Can only assume that this is because more fundraising is required in six months time - which will be a whopper if it's anything to do with commercialization. Also the 600K overhang on the share price will keep this down for months - while those who have bought in sell into the rise.

3) France reagents. Is there a major problem with present scaled results, or is this for future ease of European launch.

4) vagueness and leadership of Allan Syms. Seems like a stretch for one man, and his vague / unchallenged Internet chats are wearing thin.

Everything is too ambiguous.

5) Company not releasing "fluffy" RNS'

. Unfortunately this works both ways, as we're now seeing.

We are not getting any information on either positive or negative machinations..some of which should be RNS'd.

My mindset on this, having seen how small caps operate, is that this is hinting at descending into the usual MO..jam tomorrow, vague results, endless fundraising.

Happy to be surprised, but I will be de risking at the next event.

Not hero to zero, Neil! And I was hoping the rottweiler would add a bit of bite to this (in a good way - now you're reading from the wrong perspective ;o)

It's interesting to hear that you've been taken aback too with this and I'm certainly looking forward to your comments once you've digested it.

Maybe I overestimated your conduit to power here.

I think we've all been slightly surprised, let's say.

My concern is that knowledge is power in any investment. With Ciz there's a real feeling of shifting sands.

It's easy, and prevalent, with investors that they tend to move with that sand.

And before they know it they're at a completely different position - with almost a different company from what they invested in.

If you look objectively and rationally at this, so much appears to have changed from the RNS 2023. ..

China, reagents, timeframes, etc.

When so much changes with the company it's hard to know how far you shift with them.

When do you draw a line in the sand, and start mistrusting the information?

We are privy to such scant information, that even such things as - an example - maybe Biotechne not being used..is not RNS'd (I'm picking this out as an example that is not true as far as we know, but the type of thing that comes out of the blue with CIZ).

There appears to be so much changing without regard to shareholders.

My point is not positive or negative on the true value/ position of Cizzle..

It's that we simply don't know because the company are so secretive.

Yesterday's RNS certainly casts a long shadow.

Cheers chaps

Brond... I meant Biotechne specifically regarding reagents, not buy-out.

All sounds a bit messy to me.

And why hasn't Biotechne jumped at this ?