Member Info for Tillerman

The costs for OND and DEST, which I don't think will be that dissimillar on a patient basis, are very relevant, as is the number of Phase 3 trials required and the no of patients per trial. The cost of getting Xf-73 through enough Phase 3 triails to fully unlock the US market looks likely to be well over $100 million imo, a lot more than M3 which just requires one 700 patient trial.

Also, if the potential partner wants to do just one or two Xf-73 Phase 3 trials initiallty, there will be a long delay, five or six years for more Phase 3's, before those Xf-73 nasal benefits can be fully unlocked. For that reason imo M3 is arguably the real lead product in the medium term, which makes it doubly odd that we are now facing an potentially avoidable lengthy additional delay there, in what may be the kind of decision a purist COO might recommend internally and a CEO normally override.

Sp on the up, and good long term prospects here, just not so sure about the short term ones. Long term strugglers Ondine who are chasing the same market segment in the US as Xf-73 nasal seem to have a p3 plan submitted for 4000 patients for their solution. The number is so large because it addresses multiple applications (operation types - effectively multiple p3 trials bundled together) which is necessary to unlock the US market fully thanks to FDA regs, but is also likely extremely expensive, while infectivity p3 trials are cheaper than many other types, they seem to be still typically priced at around 35k dollars per patient (see below)? Dest can get away with fewer trials (certainly initially) as they are not tied to an enabling machine like OND, but still the cost of multiple phase 3's and the artificially fragmented US market is quite likely why discussions here are taking so long imo. Having to apply the treatment five times?, albeit in one day, is not ideal either.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1197095/clinical-trial-cost-per-patient-by-therapy-area/

If they have to rerun Phase3 for M3, even if Sebela are paying, that will further cloud the medium term prospects imo.

I wonder if the CEO has something left field up his sleeve re XF-73 Nasal? Otherwise the M3 switch looks an odd decision, from DEST's perspective the best time to switch to a solid formulation would have been post Phase 3 but before market release giving them plenty of time in parallel with Phase 3 for preparation and disolution equivalence testing. Does the CEO really think that using a liquid formulation might actually impact Phase 3 through non compliance??

The NIAID study was a pure safety study not a safety and efficacy study (they do both types), so you would not expect any efficacy data to be released since it was not part of the study. Expecting a US Gov't agency like NIAID to release it regardless is very optmistic and you can infer nothing from its absence other than that is how the system works.

Re-running p2 for M3 is/would be very different in delay terms from the pre announced reformulation and simple dissolution equivalence test for p3, and is the main reason for the the SP fall.

Data on the efficacy of XF-73 Dermal against MRSA was in fact released in July.

https://www.destinypharma.com/2023/07/31/publication-of-new-data-for-xf-73/

While the possibility of re-running p2 for M3 by Sebela was hardly "old news" AFAIK.

Realistically those are pretty nominal amounts at 2p, plus directors generally pretty much obligated to show willing in placings to some extent. Buying in the mkt is a much better indicator.

The closed period for AIM shares was changed to 30 days for all results some years ago I believe. It does not matter imo how many shares or warrants the directors have - ime, if the potential here is as large as we like to believe it is, to see no director buying at all this year seems a bit suprising. There will have have been periods this year when they could not buy of course, but equally there will have been periods when they could.

If unexpected news is imminent and known to them they cannot buy, but they haven't bought at any point since they started producng good drilling etc results and talking about giant systems. They have not been blocked all that time

As a holder I appreciate the potential here, but also wonder - why no director buying?

Bradda Head Holding Shares (from the pre listed co) are the ones trading now at 5.75p. Because of the 1 for 10 consolidation into BH Holdings, old shares in Life, the RTO vehicle, are effectively worth only 0.57p. All this should be picked up automatically by yourr broker but you may need to give them a nudge.

It was originally mooted as BRAD a couple of weeks ago, but now I see it may have changed to BHL, this would be pretty much par for the course ;)

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/955100/bradda-head-to-list-on-aim-on-monday-with-highly-attractive-portfolio-of-us-lithium-assets-955100.html

Time to close this thread and open a new one on BRAD, as the long running farce moves to a new chapter, and since the Epic CDC is now 2 iterations old. The only +ve point, beyond a the bare realities of a relisting, is that BRAD looks a decent value proposition at the floated SP, at least to those of a trusting nature.

The telegrph article indicated it would float at 5.5p a share, following on from the 10 for 1 consolidation this amounts to 0.55p per old share?

AIm listing this Month according to press today

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/07/03/mellon-list-lithium-miner-londons-junior-market/

Richard Bernstein buying shares today I see, I am not familiar with him, but I assume he is this guy.

https://www.rbadvisors.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=304&Itemid=495

13bln assets under mangement at his firm but this seems to be a personal investment FWIW.

My undesrstanding is that Motif worked very closely with the FDA to come up with a mutally acceptable trial design post the initial failure, and that design was intended by both parties to address the shortcomings of the the Linezolid trials. On that basis it might be a little difficult for the FDA to turn around and say, sorry the original trial results still rule this out, even though we agreed and fast tracked this new trial design, with its new dosage regimen delivery profile etc and the results were ok.

But who knows.

The dilemma of the DBC, where trading seems largely nominal, is summarised here. https://www.*************.com/views/29633/jim-mellon-s-diabetic-boot-company-spoof-unravelling-as-late-accounts-filed It seems they may well need further expensive (potentially very expensive) and time consuming trials to get those coveted reimbursement codes, that is the reason, I suspect that wannabe investors have been thin on the ground. it is no suprise JM seems to want someone else to fund these. Meanwhile, I expect LIFE is still merrily paying Director's salaries, and naturally nothing has been put on its website re the 'loan'.

There is very little chance of any return here imo. The farce where LIFE claimed that the DBC, at imo an absurdly elevated price level, was such a promising investment for 100% of shareholder funds that it was worth getting delisted over and breaking their commitment - still shown on the website - to return the remaining funds to shareholders, says it all alas. All of which was claimed don't forget, despite apparently zero interest from any other investors, at significantly lower price levels. It seems LIFE's purpose in LIFE was just to act a totally unconvicing price support mechanism for an always fanciful (given their weak financial and sales position) DBC float, plus paying out some very nice Director's salaries of course.

The key thing for JM has always been the implied increased valuation he can assign to the DBC using the supposed 'independent' interest of LIFE. To imply this he doesn't seem to bothered that the co has been run into the ground doing it. The same will still apply in 12 months time. I.e if he allocates Life the originally mooted 7% of the DBC for 200k, now that we now longer have an AIM shell, that will imply a valuation for the DBC of 2.8 mill or so, at a time he will be trying to attract other investment at a higher valuation to avoid write downs in his other co's (plus satisfy his crowdfunders). You see the problem. All this assumes the DBC will even be floatable at all then. In itself an outside chance imo. Hence the 20-30% weighting. But for the same reasons JM will be very reluctant to see LIFE abandon the DBC, we are now tied to them. PS Here is wishing ANT a happy (hopefully temporary) retirement.

If you define an 0.5p per share return in 6-12 months time (after that the money will have run out) as 'something benficial to shareholders', then the chances must be as high as 20-30%. Only a 90% reduction in our original value of 1m for the shell + 1m in cash. It's just as well the BOD seem to have worked tirelessly on their - sorry our - behalf for several hours a year, otherwise God knows what might have happend. NB That earlier tweet - "Working on a T" - how did that one turn out? NBB Keep an eye out to see if they ever bother to update their website, (which is still promising an EGM to return cash in the event of delisting), in regard to the loan, that will be a straw in the wind.