I see where you are coming from, reon. My first purchase in CHM was back in the "heady" days when CLTX (based on scorpion venom) for GBM was all that CHM had in its pipeline. It seemed too whacky at the time to not want to learn more about it and then invest a few dollars. The early clinical results didn't disappoint but the pace of progress sure did. Understandably, its delivery method (directly into the brain) is expensive, so probably warranted the slow approach. The subsequent move to "bring it home to Aust" and redesign the delivery method makes sense. The cost of training and engaging neurosurgeons to delivery the therapy intracranially for clinical trials is one thing but across international sites in the event of commercialisation is just not viable.
There's nothing to suggest that the therapy is being shelved. Like you, I think other delivery methods are being considered for GBM. There's all sorts of research going on at Peter Mac, the Brain Cancer Centre and WHEI in the area of Blood Brain Barrier-penetrating therapies for brain cancer immunotherapy. There's collaborations with global partners such as AstraZeneca happening at Peter Mac investigating the BBB challenge. Research elsewhere includes combining ultra-sound and nanorobots with immunotherapy which could be future avenues, though not yet reported at Peter Mac. They are using zebra fish models, CAR-T and clinical trial platforms at Peter Mac. The one I really like the look of is the Trojan-horse strategy. Deliver the CLTX peptides through the BBB via Trojan-horses and do away with CAR-T delivery! The peptides are small enough to be contained within the T-H carrier.
Don't give up on CLTX for GBM just yet. I think this is why the trial is being kept open / active in the US. We may be needing some more data to firm up the drug's viability to combat GBM (regardless of its delivery to date) and to provide a comparable arm. CAR-T is horrendously exxy, as would the necessity to engage the services of a highly skillful neurosurgeon to deliver CAR-T. So, the delay in delivering results on this front to the market will be worth the wait.
I agree with you and others that if CHM management continue to let the SP wilt, whether from lack of disclosure and transparency or just the perception of it, then the company is in trouble because further dilution at the current levels would be diabolical. Collaborations and confidentiality, which are often interconnected, should not necessitate that the market remains uninformed while insiders garner insider-knowledge. That just leads to resentment and distrust. It would be naive to expect constant updates, and naive to think that insiders don't have an advantage over the minions (and always will) due to being a greater source to tap for ongoing funding. In saying that, though... surely the company and its insiders see the dilemma you outline with regards to dilution? Wouldn't a concerted effort to push the SP north be preferable for all investors, including the insiders, and from a longterm perspective? "Follow the money" is what they say, isn't it? Hopper has invested a motsa, with a lot at stake if CHM fails... but I concede, he also earns a motsa annually, including a performance-based cash bonus of $51k for "driving stakeholder value" when the SP went from 4c to 1.6c (not vice versa) in that time period.
So, while some will only view value via the SP, others will see the value in the assets (or at least the potential value). No-one invests in speculative stocks without vision based on the latter. CHM has acquired numerous international patents and likely has many more in the pipeline to come. Yes, without the funds to develop our platforms and therapies, the company will be in dire straits. But, unlike you, reon, I believe more non-dilutive finance could come our way. It could be in the form of grants, deinvestments, partnering and/or out-licensing of our CORE-NK platform, the asset which didn't get a mention.
Expand
(20min delay)