And then... Let's have a little deeper look at several things.
This is a long post and I must apologize in advance to Frt for the lump on his forehead that will be caused when this post puts him to sleep and his head hits the table.
My opinions about Bioasis are all about time, inadequate management, lack of accomplishment and poor disclosure. These are the major complaints of all shareholders. In my assessments of Bioasis, I gave DrDR a couple of years to do something that indicates EXECUTION of a strategic plan. A good plan is a swell thing but it's nothing without EXECUTION. It hasn't happened and, again, shareholders are going to be asked in the AGM to approve the same old promises about "next year will be great." xB3 may be great, or may be a failure, but it's the management that has a far greater chance of failure. You can't easily change xB3, but you can certainly change management. Have a look.
There are two significant anniversaries coming around in March, 2023, less than five month from now.
In the over five years there have been only two press releases announcing xB3 scientific results of any kind.
On November 20, 2018, Bioasis announced a
Peripheral Whole-Body PET/CT Scan Study in which it was shown that xB3-001 penetrated the lymphatic system of non-human primates. As some shareholders will recall, that was a rather serendipitous finding because the study set out to investigate something else and their methods were incorrect for doing so.
And the latest scientific news came almost three years later on July 7, 2021, when the company reported success with xB3-004 (xB3-IL-1Ra) in a
mouse model of multiple sclerosis. This was a good PR but it did not address the question of how much xB3-004, once across the BBB, actually went off target, and if it did, whether it's a problem. or not (There is little doubt that xB3 can deliver a lot of drug to the CNS, but the question is how much of it is effective and how much of the dose is a problem because it's off target.)
Over three years ago, on July 25, 2018, there was a PR about a
study showing increased brain activity in mice from the delivery of xB3-001 across the BBB, thus proving the existence of delivery of trastuzumab to the CNS by xB3. Well, I guess, that's an important thing to show in an objective and concise manner, but any other result would have ended the show. And also, there was no indication that the resulting brain stimulation by xB3-001 was because it went either on target or off target once across the BBB. Drugs that cause brain stimulus (hallucinations?) also often cause brain damage, as most old potheads know.
Then we have to go way back to 2015 to find another scientific press release. It was about Scarpa's
studies with Hunter Syndrome. So, over seven years ago Bioasis was studying Hunter Syndrome and we are indeed fortunate to have Hunter Syndrome in the Bioasis development pipeline, because, otherwise, there has never been any scientific or developmental news about Hunter Syndrome, not from Bioasis.
And then...
When I discovered that paper, probably in early 2021, that's when I began to worry about xB3 and the disclosure practices of DrDR. I already had worries about disclosure practices and about inattention to detail, something that can and has caused investors to question Bioasis and the information it releases.
And then add to that the fact, as near as I can determine, that no paying Bioasis partner with commercial interests in xB3 and the transport of drugs across the BBB has ever publicly released scientific news about xB3. There is a long list of Bioasis partners, including many who have quietly "faded" away and others still "on the books," but not one of them has ever said anything about the science, use or any other information about using and developing drugs with xB3. Not.One.Of.Them.
As mentioned earlier, there have been no milestones met nor any revenue announced from any agreement. No material transfer agreement (MTA) that we know of has advanced to a revenue-producing agreement.
Both before and after my formal association with Bioasis I frequently asked Rob Hutchison, Mark Day and Deborah Rathjen whether the lack of scientific and commercial news about xB3 was related to anything being wrong, either perceived or actual, with xB3. The answer has always been "no" but, at long last, after 14 years, and no news of the advancement of xB3-related science, is there or is there not something wrong with xB3?
And if there is nothing wrong with xB3, then why is there no news about xB3. I don't mean news about new deals. I mean why is there no news about the capabilities of xB3 nor about successes with xB3? Why has no company met a milestone? Why has no company moved an MTA into a formal and public agreement?
Going into an AGM in this state does not suggest that a mandate should be given to the present management and BoD to do whatever they want. They should not be given a mandate unless they make a public statement that clearly and accurately states the current state of scientific knowledge about xB3 and whether any company has postponed or given up work on their xB3 studies and projects because of concern about or experience with xB3.
We could, or I could, always make excuses for Bioasis as long the causes of Bioasis problems were related to management's poor judgement or the lack of money. You can always replace management and, if there is still confidence in the technology, money seems to always be available when it comes right down to it. But a problem with xB3, if it exists, is a much more serious thing. Technology problems can sometimes be fixed or otherwise mitigated in some way, but sometimes they signal that the technology is headed for retirement. Investors need to know whether xB3 enjoys the full confidence of Bioasis and its commercial partners.
I have not mentioned Cresence. Of course the question is whether Cresence is the only thing of value remaining at Bioasis. I know, it's closer to clinical trials than anything related to xB3, but it's also a swell way to say later that xB3 just didn't work out but at least we have Cresence. And management could say, "It's too bad xB3 didn't work out, but at least we have Cresence. We're going to remain with Bioasis until our options pay off. No sorry, we should say that we will be immediately advancing the Cresence projects to clinical trials."
Again, Bioasis needs to clear the air. I have more to say about these and many other things.
jd