Where is old mate psuedobat1? I miss old mate's arrogance, blind faith and the pure craziness (WW3 submissions), I also miss Scoot's Friday night drunken rampages!
So little anger on here. Makes you wonder whether the pump accounts were insiders, controlled by one or two authors or HC trying to create engagement!
Recycling old news again - 2001.....Reckon Laver and Lamb were on the money! (science on "shaky grounds"...overstating, etc). It would be interesting if the AFR did a follow-up to this story. 24 years later, $100 million wasted...!!
Not sure what the solution is to better protect investors investing in these types of biotech companies. Maybe, a levy for all new and existing Bios, so that the regulators can have scientists review and verify trial results etc? The asx is littered with rugged bio stocks, which are going from one cap raise to the next. The fact that they are all small fry and no big punters have been rugged means that they don't care.
I feel its only a matter of time, where a bio gets ipo'd... ramped up, breaks into the top 100/50 and turns out to be a rug. Then there will be a change.
New biotech company Biotron is facing allegations it has made misleading claims in its prospectus documents, just one day after listing on the Australian Stock Exchange. Based on research from the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University, Biotron plans to develop diagnostic tests for cancer and a compound that could fight HIV/AIDS. The company also claims its research may lead to drugs for other viruses, including dengue fever and Ross River fever. In the section titled "Revenue and Market Potential", the Biotron prospectus estimates drugs for these viruses could generate $100 million annually.
However, some scientists allege Biotron is basing its claims about fighting viruses on uncertain science. ANU Professor Graeme Laver has lodged an official complaint with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission alleging that the Biotron prospectus contains a false claim, particularly in relation to statements about dengue and Ross River fevers. The executive research director at Biotron, Professor Peter Gage, rejects the allegation, saying: "I don't think we've misled the public". But in an interview with The Australian Financial Review on Wednesday, Professor Gage conceded that the prospectus wording could have been improved by reflecting more of the scientific uncertainty.
The controversy centres on the complex and uncertain science of viruses and the role of "ion channels" microscopic pathways across the membranes of cells through which ions may move. In theory, viruses such as HIV and dengue fever rely on ion channels to replicate, so if a drug can block the channel, the virus can be fought. But, according to the critics, sections of the Biotron prospectus have made the science sound much more certain than it really is. Professor Gage, a long-time and well-respected ANU scientist, says he has new unpublished evidence to support the statements made in the Biotron prospectus. While he says he has not launched Biotron in order to make money, he holds 9.5 million shares, now worth almost $5 million. The editor-in-chief of the journal Virology, Professor Robert Lamb, is sceptical about some of the claims made by Professor Gage and Biotron about the science of viruses. Based at Northwestern University in Chicago, Professor Lamb said one of the prospectus's key statements about the role of ion channels in viruses was on shaky ground. The controversy surrounding Biotron follows previous concerns about commercialisation at the ANU....
Expand
(20min delay)