RE:Going concern
jmm1228 wrote: Seems to me that the transition from an R&D mission to a going concern is a primary investor worry.
It worries me. There is a dearth of going concern executive talent here and no signals that this huge breakthrough can be skillfully advanced to market with the current skill set.
Until this fear is quelled and TLT trading moves to abmore stable exchange,the slog upwards will be tough.
The two PP'sare absolutely essential at this point whatever direction this takes.
Having a position in what is almost surely a major historical medical feat is getting haltingly more secure and in 60 days will reach another threshold.
The science looks to be very sound, the transition to a going concern is questionable. If the market is telling us something it this, IMO.
I am hoping that this superb technology ends up in the stable of a Big Pharma giant and soon.
What else makes sense?
Yep...The value in any emerging biotech is generally in its potential. Re: acquisition value, TLT has some unique advantages.
Firstly, they have managed to successfully conduct a clinical trial thus far & not create a deficit of "hundreds of millions"...unlike other trials. Although financial hiccups are to be expected in drug development, especially for an emerging biotech/start-up, TLT was also able to weather an unexpected storm (& its associated expensive delays) in the form of a pandemic & not sustain overly detrimental shareholder/company casualties....although the departure of Dr. Vera M. may be considerd one by some. Re: the recent PP, it indicates to me that we simply needed more working capital (sooner than previously expected) in order to sustain adequate patient enrollment, see this trial to an approval, & equally important, fund at least one other Ph 1.
Secondly, TLT (via Dr. McFarland) has developed a "non-biologic" (TLD-1433 & other similars) unlike our competitor biologics such as Keytruda, N-803, Nadofaragene & other competition. Such a difference adds significant value imo due to the fact that ongoing production of non-biologics is generally less complex & associated production costs are generally much lower.
Thirdly, there is significant value in a treatment that has it all...it's efficient (only 2 treatments), safe & effective. It is also versatile...there's potential for making adjustments in the number of treatments given per patient & there's the potential to cover multiple indications....not just cancer). Possibly the most important advantage is the fact that the chemical composition of the drug is more easily modifiable...thanks to Dr. McFarland et al. The latter bodes very well for boosting efficacy/success in the future if needed.
If TLT can demonstrate early efficacy/safety in an additional/unrelated indication, I believe this company's position/value would be more significantly optimized...may be the ideal time to confer any going concern worries to Big Pharma, etc.
All imo. Good luck...