Member Info for The.Italian

hardly an original theory.i can't imagine many sensible people take much notice of the ramping crew and likewise with the decamping crew!

good man!not a fan of roobler then?

personally think that is unlikely but it will all depend on FDA response finance and timelines.

yes thats the main point i drew from it.the trading strategies suggested are ok presumably if you are trading large numbers of stocks but on an individual basis the dynamics of he particular stock are going to determine its future just my opinion of course

yes.90 day lock in and further 90 day orderly market agreement as per RNS

there is certainly nothing on the official london stock exchange website.

i have been listening thecpriceinterview for the isa time .need to be careful not to attach too much significance to this type of interview as they are obviously self promoting as otherwise they wouldn't do them.that said he does come across well and i was left feeling encouraged.my specific question is when he refers to the Altair trade on 4th march to an institutional investor is he saying "block trade"i assume it must be what he is saying but its a bit unclear on my computer.if it is a block trade i would have expected aTR-1 by now(the sale was on monday) or at beginning of next week which if so will be interesting.

the Zacks report suggested type A meeting typically granted 30-45 days after request..formal minutes given to company 30 days after meeting.update expected after receipt of formal minutes.what we do not know is when meeting was requested.the company should have received a response to the meeting request within 14 days of request.

yes vascular thats the link.thanks for that.

sorry cannot post link but the thesis can be found by googling "Analysis of stock market reactions to FDA &EMEA announcements" its by a student of the university of Ghent

continued...by some posters that the market is very limited.even if it is not as extensive as some have suggested it would have to visually non existed to justify a M?C of £20m if approved .i do not think that is realistic

evening vascular et al.been out today but see there have been a number of interesting informative and challenging posts today.briefly my take on the two specific questions raised in the later posts is 1/all subjects received the same 80 dose. i do not recall any mention at any time that different doses were used for any subjects.could be wrong of course but that is my reasonably firm view.2/the reference to subjects returning to normal levels applied to all patients in both groups.if there had been any variation between ip and vanc it would have had to be made clear in the narrative.anything else would be misleading.thats my strong reading of it but again could be wrong.i make no comment about the significance one way or another as i have to leave that to those who understand the technical issues much better than me.
vascular I'm still struggling to find any examples of aim pharmas to fit your profile.there may be some but they are not to put it mildly abundant.there may be a good reason for this .the sheer cost of getting FDA/EMA approval may in itself militate against small pharmas generally having the resources and staying power to get there.perhaps most fall by the wayside on the journey or as you suggest get swallowed up immediately after success.in trying to find examples i have come across a masters thesis which tries to assess the impact of FDA/EMA approval from an investment perspective.its very interesting but i have no idea how reliable it is(it looks very impressive to a layman).im not going to relate its overall conclusions but i will give details of how to find it in a following post for those who want to look at it.what it does highlight however is the cost of getting a drug to FDA approval i know this has been discussed many time but the figures really are quite startling.by2005 the average cost is put at1.3 billion dollars.other studies it says give an average figure of 1 billion dollars by 2010.what is most interesting however is that it suggests that if one takes into account the large number of products that fail the true cost is vastly more.if you divide the total amount spent on R&d by the number of approved drugs the true cost is roughly 5 billion dollars.it gives an example that between 1997 and 2011 pfizer spent 108 billion dollars on R&D and had 14 drugs approved by FDA i.e. 7.7 billion dollars per drug.its just one thesis and i have no idea of its authorative weight but from a simple broad perspective assessment if iclaprim is approved it may represent an achievement which on some assessments could cost anything from 1 to 7 billion dollars.i would suggest that however you view the figures and whatever weight you attach to statistics there is a significant disconnect between that cost figure and our market cap of £20m or so.i know that just because it costs a great deal to produce something it does not necessarily mean it is worth a great deal to sell but i do not accept the one dimensional analysis put forward by

i have checked the australian federal court lists for the 11th march when the case was due to be heard according to the last announcement but could not find anything.there are various possibilities.the first and perhaps most likely is that i had not been looking in the right places or have failed to work the listing system correctly.Second the case has been moved to a different date .Quite possible.Third the case has been settled prior to hearing.Possible but perhaps the least likely explanationtthere may be other reasons i have not thought of.in view of the poor s/p performance and the likelihood of disappointing full year figures this case does take on slightly greater significance.i did think about emailing jamie but as we should get an update in results in next 3 weeks or so its probably pointless.just posting for general information.

TR-1 you can find an example at the end or the RNS of 22/1/19 regarding notification of shareholdings.the trigger points are 3% 4% 5% and so on up or down.its significance has to be assessed in the light of who has increased/decreased or newly acquired and the amounts etc.can be significant but not necessarily.

yes very good post ivy!

its a bit odd really.google shows it closing up 7.73% but then falling in after-hours trading by 6.15% so an effective net gain of1.58%.im going to focus on the 7.73%figure to support my morale.on a more serious note vascular raises some interesting questions.it is not easy to find examples to give him.bioventex is an aim success story but its not really comparable to motif and therein lies the difficulty.as highlighted by crusty optimism has been focussed on iclaprims potential not just the likelihood of FDA approval.also the 85%fall was staggering.if it had gone down 50%we would probably have said fair response we need 100 increase to get back to where we were .but at 85% it looks like a very formidable hurdle.still perfectly achievable imo if we get approval but anything more is probably going to need a very good licence/partnership deal to justify it.obviously I'm just speculating and anything could happen.i am hopeful that with the right marketing iclaprim till has huge potential. if we get approval its potential may still be realised all just my opinion of course

have you had a reply yet because if they are going to do as you have asked i want to be in first thing on monday!

just gone very positive imo

dip Stick thank you for the detailed response much appreciated. rest assuresdi shall not treat it as advice in any sense.i follow the reasoning and it makes sense but as always we are at the mercy of events as well as the machinations of the lenders and major shareholders.i shall be having a closer look at the warrant situation in light of your comments.thanks again

thank you bignose.yes a bit of light relief needed i think.regards