RE:RE:Not Worried About SP...goldn1 wrote: Hempdoc wrote: Honestly, if everyone believes in the science, then this pps is a gift. I'm certainly not one of those highly experienced/technical traders like some of you, but it seems to me the greatest opportunity for maximal wealth creation is if this company can survive independently for as LONG as possible. You can ultimately fully own/license your technology, etc....but a premature buyout or partnership simply reduces prematurely your maximum future reward imo.
People may scoff at the idea of future financing &/or a share consolidation & their dilutive impacts, but I certainly wouldn't scoff at the above if done properly...I guess that's a big IF in many investors' minds. But if we were to stay independent, I'd be interested in hearing some of your thoughts about the possibility of a rights offering (non-transferable) for future financing of a second indication? I believe if we can stay independent & prove our superior efficacy in a second or "hard-to-reach" indication, our value "takes off" as we are now seen as a true threat in the solid tumor market (deep or superficial/luminal).
Obviously, I'm not sure mgmt would even offer such a gesture of consideration to its shareholder base...they should. Such an offering would certainly offset any dilutive impact of a future share consolidation, if needed. IMO, if we can get FDA approved for NMIBC, we may not immediately qualify for an NAS listing, but ultimately, I don't think it would require more than a 1-for-2 consolidation, during which time you have protected your wealth & likely created an opportunity for A LOT more vs selling out prematurely. Call me an optimist or maybe just a dreamer.
Hempdoc...
I assume you are a doctor and a fan of hemp :)...
As a doctor, can you really say that the science has been "proven" after only 2 successful patients and a lot of positive results in the lab? This isn't me being difficult, I am an investor who understands the basic procedure, but I find it is hard to understand how people can be so sure of the science...
Ruthenium complexes have been used clinically since 1979 in anticancer therapy, yet non have ever been commercialized. Several other companies are still trying to use Ruthenium due to its anticancer properties.
What am I missing that makes TLT's process 100% effective and safe that myself and the rest of the world is missing, as I would think such a big breakthrough in efficacy and safety should garner a bit more attention...
G1
Hi G1...
Good to hear from you & others...I play a doc & prefer cannabis ; )
The science certainly hasn't been statistically proven, but TLT has developed a Ruthenium-based compound (TLD 1433) that is chemically unique & superior to other similarly-based compounds. The beauty lies in the fact that it can perform remarkably well in almost any environment (including hypoxic ones), is relatively easily activated (even at greater depths) & causes significantly less toxicity that other compounds. Then you link such a unique/superior compound to a carrier (apo-transferrin) to yield Rutherrin, which is a favorite snack of almost every cancer menu, & then activate it by top of the line PDT/dosimetry = a game-changer imo. To me, there is certainly risk, but this risk is minimal even with such a small sample.
As for attention, we lack it because we are on a petty exchange with lots of manipulation tactics + many don't truly understand the science & what is sitting in our laps.
I'm hoping we get an exciting NR soon (my guess is before the AGM) that we have been accepted for fast track status with 10+ CRs in the bag. If all goes well as I suspect, I think a BTD may be in the bag as well before year end. JMO. Good luck...