With all the misinformation, name calling, foul language going on, I have come to the conclusion that it is not worth my time contributing to this thread (or any other thread for that matter) anymore. Grown adults (assumption based on nick numbers) engaging in a conversation style that even puts teens in their worst years of puberty to shame - all in the name of "discussing a stock", conveniently hidden under the illusion of being a potential investor - no thank you.
Anyone interested in discussing this stock, feel free to contact me directly.
A few last remarks though:
2D/3D:
Anyone claiming to have spent years reading up on both stocks would be aware of the following:
2D/3D is less irrelevant for Cynata's Cymerus Technology:
"It's about growing cells, you know, manufacturing at scale." Sure, if you want to simplify it like that, your statement is correct.
However, the need for a different scale-up (NOT scale-out) MSC expansion solution is to grow the numbers of cells "in vitro" for large indications (and I'm not only talking about cell-wise, but also patient wise) from what is a very rare commodity "in vivo":
(same report as above)
In order to avoid this bottleneck all together, Cynata Inc. "was formed in October 2011 by two of the inventors of the Cymerus technology (Professor Igor Slukvin and Dr Maksym (Maxim) Vodyanik), in collaboration with Australian technology entrepreneur, Dr Ian Dixon." https://www.cynata.com/company-history
What makes The Cymerus Process different to other approaches is the fact that the manufacturing process is not relying on ANY rare commodity such as bone marrow, hence avoiding the issue of finding the right balance between expansion at scale and running at risk of compromising vital factors such as the cells ability to proliferate as well as losing potency.
Sounds complicated?
Not according to Stewart Washer (I'm sure you heard that name before):
Having access to unlimited starting material in the form of iPSCs and taking into account that the vast expansion of Cynata's iPSC-MSCs occurs on the iPSC level, with only the last step involving a modest (from memory 4) expansion on an MSC level.
Anyone that is truly interested will be able to source plenty "peer-reviewed" reference material such as the above.
As mentioned in that snippet above, that "last minute though" when it comes to the practical aspects of manufacturing, sure, throw enough money at it and eventually you might get there. Or you have your "blue prints" for your Autobahn tested, validated and ready when start building an initial footpath, knowing that if people decide to take this route, turning your footpath into a popular way to travel from A to B, you don't have to worry about any mountains or lakes on the way that require expensive conquering. You might want to call that "reverse engineering" and I know which option would be my preference, especially if it is my capital being used to conquer (either in the form of a CR to existing shareholders, loan facilities, SP resulting in further dilution of my investment).
Teratoma Formation (due to undifferentiated iPSCs, NOT iPSC-MSCs):
Again, nothing new and only a matter of time until it is being brought up again - lack of research and/or conscious attempt to spread misinformation.
The recent nature article is so far in my opinion the best description of the safety measures in place:
I also refer to the nature article regarding my remarks about it being a process, constantly being improved and such improvements being covered through additional patents. Without having access to the estate of patents, your final product is NOT CYP-001, CYP-002, CYP-003 etc.:
(same nature article)
WORF:
Despite recent claims being made, that 50% of our income is being paid to this guy:
I can assure you that this is true fiction. Although, if he was to ask me for spare change in the middle of the night, I would give him my whole wallet without hesitation.
Anyways, let's look at WARF instead. Look at the unique position of FujiFilm (FCDI), look at the licensing agreements in place, look at the delay for CYP-001 in GvHD. Then look at the amount paid by Cynata (US$10,000 on the upfront licensing fee received by FF). Then ask yourself, why...
Any other potential partner, as I have mentioned numerous times, I'm sure the 30% will apply, however the royalty payments will be a lot different (when I say sure I mean IMO). Again, I'm happy to pay 30% of money I have in MY bank account as opposed to paying interest on someone else's fund, hoping to pay for the interest with future income, still having to repay the capital to then check what is left. That is a risk that I am personally also not willing to take (you might want to compare it with negative gearing). Personal decision.
By the way, GvHD approval in children is barely a measure for a "consistent" product. All I see is a small indication that can be easily served with currently ONE donor per year (make it two perhaps after the first one). As I have mentioned in some of my other posts, the proven benefit of Ryoncil in the specifically designed clinical trial focussing on the subpopulation of GvHD patients where it has proven to show the best outcome in the past, outweighs the concerns over a product that requires a minimum amount of donors to service. That's what the PMDA said back in 2015 as well. ARDS - different story. Do the maths. If you can service a large population of patients in a short period of time (based on GvHD figures, I would estimate it to be about 900-1,400 patients from 1 donor), that's what I would consider a consistent product. NOT less than 10 patients per week.
Enough from me, enough time wasted. Anyone interest in an actual discussion, contact me and I'm sure we can work something out.
Everyone else, good luck with your investment.
CYP Price at posting:
$1.04 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)