Quite a few questions there
@RitzyBusiness 
a) The Hunter project is progressing well and we should be getting news soon(ish). The project has expanded somewhat from what was originally envisaged due to the whole FTO story which means it will take a little longer than first planned. Given the importance of FTO I am happy with this.
b) The importance of the COH paper is hard to overestimate. It is a hugely exciting area of cancer research and for us to have a specific drug targeting this pathway is amazingly lucky. This paper really does change the entire potential value of bisantrene and I don’t think the market understands this fully yet.
Most of what has been missed by the market I can’t talk about as it is price sensitive, but just one example I can that nobody has picked up on is why the other FTO inhibitor, brequinar, failed in the clinic. While it failed as an anticancer agent (it was used in more than 250 patients), it also failed as an transplant organ rejection drug (it is very immunosuppressive). One of the major reasons it never made it to market as an anti-rejection drug is the plasma concentrations of brequinar varied enormously (about 10 fold) depending on the patient. They found that they had to adjust the dosing on a per patient basis by assaying the patient's blood. This makes it totally impractical to use in regular clinical practice and hence why it was likely dropped.
c) In regards Sheba I think too many investors have concentrated on the primary objectives and not the actual results. In my opinion the trial should never had been designed to measure survival over 24 months since the patients recruited only had weeks to live (the trial was designed before I was involved with RAC).
In these very late stage patients it is the clinical response and safety profile that is important and that was similar (or better) than the historical trials. I think the market has missed that the Sheba trial means the historical data is still relevant to today's patients. I think people should value the historical data as though we had collected it in the last few years, not that it was from 30 or 40 years ago. Just because data is old doesn’t mean it is worthless.
d) I think the "3 amigos" are a sign that RAC is maturing as a company from a penny dreadful into a serious biotech player. When I talk to institutional investors I am taken seriously and they are interested in hearing the story.
e) I would really encourage him/her to look into the RNA epigenetic cancer area (i.e. FTO). The only downside is it is very complex. Here are some review articles to look at that should hopefully help.
Zhao, W., Qi, X., Liu, L., Ma, S., Liu, J., & Wu, J. (2020). Epigenetic Regulation of m6A Modifications in Human Cancer. Molecular Therapy - Nucleic Acids, 19, 405–412. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2019.11.022M6A
Huang, H., Weng, H., & Chen, J. (2020).
M6A mRNA Modification in Cancer Treatment. from m6A Modification in Coding and Non-coding RNAs: Roles and Therapeutic Implications in Cancer Huang. Cancer Cell, 37(3), 270–288. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2020.02.004
Deng, X., Su, R., Stanford, S., & Chen, J. (2018). Critical Enzymatic Functions of FTO in Obesity and Cancer. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 9, 724–7. http://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00396
(20min delay)