Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Nationwide upping the deposit required from 5% to 15% suggests they think house prices are going to fall. Would HTB still mean buyers would only require 5% on new builds as the government would be covering 20% of equity?
Bamps123 - invested in GGP since your recommendation, thank you for that. Well out of my comfort zone there as no expertise in that area. Do you have a price you think it might get to?
Bamps123 - have you looked at Renalytix at all? I am very familiar with that field and the business certainly has very strong points and also some weak ones. Potentially massive market if they get it right. Not getting much joy from that board as was wondering if you had a take on it at all.
I am invested there but not with much and debating whether to up my stake.
Red - thanks for letting me know. For me, it is very important that a company is transparent and honest and what you said of their willingness to communicate is very promising.
Definitely, analysis can only get you so far, too many unknowns. Luckily, any biotech research and analysis is also enjoyable
For me the key questions would be the strength of their patents, potential competitors and their plans to use their patient samples in other conditions.
A company with a strong US or global sales force would be ideally placed.
They could easily develop primers and get a suitable test developed but that still would take time and they might calculate that the purchase cost would be less than the profit they would lose in that development period.
The antibody element is integral to the test. Try logic, if patents aren't your strength. You don't patent the individual components of the claim you patent the process as a whole. Think about this and read the claim again and you will realise the error in your thinking. For example antibody based detection of biomarkers is a component of the claim but is not patented by the claim. You patent the whole process.
You don't know whether the patient data is patented then. I will look elsewhere.
You are being very helpful, thank you. Your grade is appreciated, were you a teacher?
Unfortunately you are incorrect about the patent. Using a detection other than antibody would be sufficient. There is no ambiguity. Try reading the patent act 1977.
You mention the patient data set they have access to. That is why is asked if others had access to this data set. Furthermore, their data set used in that paper is not particularly large and not that representative of the US population at large.
Their first movement in the market, good connections and rapid progression are impressive. The large market and potentially transferability of their research are other positive points.
Their vulnerability to competitors, limited data set (which they are expanding) and the low PPV of their test are the clear weaknesses
Seadoc - I would doubt their primer design is providing much competitor advantage anymore but their early establishment and accreditations will do. I think it will come down to that and the strength of their sales teams.
Decent sales and a clear , credible announcement of their future plans in infectious diagnostics and affiliated testing is enough to warrant a higher valuation
Thanks for that, glad to see you do want to help. We all want our investments to succeed.
The risk is their Ppv is only 60% and other companies would be looking to improve this as I am sure they are.
Have you read their patent document? If you look at the claim 1 section you can clearly see they mention that detecting the biomarkers with antibodies. If a company was to detect these biomarkers by other means, such as affimers, then they would be able to circumvent the claim. I would have to read the entire document to determine if there any amendments to try and broaden the scope to other detection methods but too broad a scope and the patent could be attacked for being invalid.
If you need help with filtering just let me know, because it doesn't seemed to have worked.
Whilst investing yourself you don't want to help other posters? Doing so in a reasoned, balanced manner is a good way to support your own investment. On some other company boards there certainly are helpful posters.
How is it possible to be completely wrong about a subjective decision regarding the purpose of this forum?
I think their product can be copied but that doesn't mean their business is without merit, how much merit I am trying to establish.
Seadoc, there are some individuals here, such as Shear, who have no scientific or medical knowledge so this might be difficult for them.
Do you know where the primers are designed against, are they a relatively invariant region that is not under mutation selection pressure. Has the primer sequence been released to determine the GC/AT proportion and its potential tolerance to mutations or is the reason particularly degenerate where codon mutations would be tolerated?
Would need to know this and more before evaluating the current primers in use.
Donmac1 - do you want this site to be full of abuse and superficial comments that don't help current or potential investors or do you want it to contain informed debate that will help people?
If you want to retire then I am happy for you but some of us actually enjoy our job beyond the financial reward that it brings. To be honest, with the anger and lack of reasoning that you demonstrate here it is probably better for you, and certainly your coworkers, that you are retiring.
I have stated before that I will be investing here but that still does not mean you shouldn't question and investigate further as it will inform how much to invest, how long to invest it and whether to invest it competitors etc.
Your behaviour, use of caps lock, meaningless hype terminology and inability to answer anything about the company has simply discredited you.
Provide useful information to other investors to help them make their decisions rather than blindly promoting you own shares and interests.
I asked for references regarding Mount Sinai to help my research,not that I hadn't heard of them.
Difficult questions which you don't have the ability to answer and you filter, I hope that investing strategy serves you well.
I have read their investor info. I have read their recent research paper, have you? How is that not my own research? I have then posted questions from that paper
Either the answers to my questions are blindingly obvious and you should be able to answer them easily and quickly or they are not obvious and then you could provide assistance and help me with them. Therefore, the fact you have not answered can only mean you do not know the answers.
'Believe you when you prove it' is prett much the cornerstone of modern science and medicine.
You don't think that clinical markers, blood markers and potentially polymorphisms (if they use them) can be utilised in other conditions? You don't think this diversification would add value?
Shear - I take it you cannot answer my questions and are unable to engage in reasoned debate. I can appreciate you might have no scientific, medical or even financial knowledge and these are clearly challenging topics for you.
Thanks for addressing my points Shear. What background do you have, is it medical, scientific or in patenting?
You said research and analyse that is a very going point, although you ommitted publish, which is vitally important in order to prove to the wider community. In a peer reviewed journal without competing interest. Research and analyse on this scale would routinely fit easily within the confines of a typical research grant, nothing exceptional there.
That is why asked about the patient bank and their access to it. I take it you do not know if they have exclusive access to this data?
Why would I be raising capital in a free to use app for which the research would be covered by a grant?
Are any of the CKD advisory board affiliated with the company? They would advise on the utility if such a process, which I acknowledged, not on it financial merits, which I am uncertain.
Donmac1 - you say you know all their is to know about the company. Anders to these would be useful:
Why did they only use the plasma markers they used and not additional markers or polymorphisms? Do they have the IP to the patient cohort? Do they have a larger set of patient data, if so how large? Do they have an indication of how many programmers and how long it took to generate their AI code? Do they have a full coated analysis of what they think they can save health services by stratifying CKD 3 patients with T2DM?
Mrbadexample - thank you for your post and link. I have read through their paper.
It appears that they are correlating clinical parameters and several plasma biomarkers to try and predict decline in eGFR/kidney function.
Their model outperforms existing clinical protocols for risk stratification of patients with borderline CKD. The existing clinical models don't incorporate the aforementioned plasma markers in their predictions. Does their model improve on the existing model merely because it incorporates more variables? They also don't include and genetic/polymorphism data and many other variables which presumably would improve the PPV.
Do they hold the IP rights to the patient data they have used?
I can't see what is stopping someone else correlating these variables with additional variables to come up with a model with higher PPV. There are many good computer modellers in biotech that might do this for a freely available app.
Risk stratification is useful but it is not immediately obvious how this would translate into significant savings. A lot of the proposed benefits such as monitoring would still be maintained in patients with T2DM (the population in the study) and the drugs they propose that would be saved would primarily be prescribed based on BM or BP readings.
Seems a really interesting academic study but think there are multiple holes from a business perspective. I think they could expand their analyses into other conditions if they have access to suitable patient data, this would add significantly to their chances of success.
Might still put a small amount in as not much around to invest in and think that if they have access to a lot of patient data and willing to diversify then it could get interesting.
I see you were rude to other posters in the past when they asked questions.
Simply stating algorithms is not an explanation of what this company does. Stating 'wow', 'multibag' etc. as you have done previously does not constitute useful input.
Your tone and inability to explain what the company does and how its product is marketable is proof enough for me that you do not know what the company does.
Hopeful a more informed poster will be able to help