Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
How would you read this?
If anyone needs the URL for GM's notice (thanks by the way) of the CIM agreement, here it is: 8-K 7/7/2016
With a $12,500 retainer fee upon signing and the $10,000/month retainer fee for the other firm negotiating deals for the product line, one thing seems clear to me: RGBP truly believes its science and new discoveries are at a point advanced enough to engage others in striking deals, whether that is with Mexico and the HemaX clinical trials (which now have 3 month data on other blood applications testing) as well as the development for aplastic anemia and/or the NR2F6 small molecule research advancement which now has at least 2 matches for activation.
July - August should bring some very interesting news. Any agreement that is reasonable and gives the company enough cash for clinical phase I trials should have a positive effect on PPS as well.
Let's hope all goes well.
If this is money for shares, the share price will tell us a lot if or if they are not making any business progress.
I believe you are right and this wording is why we won't know the extent until the dotted line is signed most likely [Note: working in a confidential manner]:
I agree. If I recall correctly (but correct me if I'm wrong), the 500 million valuation was tied to companies having a "Checkpoint Inhibitor" product development. RGBP's focus is on all aspects of NR2F6 as a checkpoint inhibitor for which they can be a variety of products to develop as seen in both tCellVax and ucVax INDs. They have identified 2 compounds for NR2F6 inhibition I think and looking for more NR2F6 activation compounds as expressed in a previous PR.
If Eli Lilly compounds provide matches, look for partnership with Eli Lilly. If NCATs compounds provide the matches, look for Eli Lilly or others to step forward for development projects. Either way, my guess and it is only a guess based on released information not knowing what is moving forward without PR updates, is that should RGBP identify 2 more compounds, we will begin to see partnership development agreements for possibly all NR2F6 related compounds and a separate partnership for HemaX in which case we would reach the valuation of checkpoint inhibitor product development with added on value as well as a possible cutting edge of a small molecule checkpoint inhibitor in a pill form possibility which is an extra valuation as well.
If you are referring to my own previous posts, my references to 2nd and 3rd Qtr developments were based on the Jan Open Letter and anticipation of those achievements having a profound impact for the future of the company.
The achievements by the company as outlined in the Jan open letter have been accomplished and much progress has been made by the company which is going forward with the science. Can you name one scientific setback thus far in the past year?
What has not happened is the PPS increase that was expected based on the good news that has been released:
- HemaX FDA approval - check
- Announce new partnerships Q1 - check (we now have NIH/NCATS and Eli Lilly compound testing with at least 2 announced compound matches for NR2F6 inhibition. Achieved and working with Lilly to identify for opposite factor of NR2F6.
-IND for dCellVax - Q2 - check (But we haven't heard of the FDA feedback/reaction yet)
-Initial IND for inhibitor of NR2F6 - Q2 check (called tCellVax, but once again, we haven't heard anything as to the FDA reacation/questions/feedback. It was submitted with Completed pre-clinical trial data. So, assuming RGBP has learned its lessons from the past, these pre-clinical trials I believed were performed by Dr. Kesari in a qualified lab. Why the silence on this submission I don't know. There is once again a lot of silence from the company regarding key product developments. We get the initial news, but not the helpfull follow up in order to be able to assess progression (my ongoing complaint against the company).
Q3 is supposed to be HemaX trial initiation as well as Identify samll molecule inhibitor of NR2F6 (for which they are currently in agreement with Eli Lilly to scan 21,000 compounds of Eli Lilly and 70,000 compounds in total).
So, you want to talk about predictions and progress. It's all there except for the PPS increase. Without big money, the PPS isn't going far in my opinion for a while.
While many on this board are against reverse splits, what I would actually like to see is a reverse split as soon as there is a tangible and significant funding or partnership agreement with pharma such as Eli Lilly that would put the price of RGBP and RGBPP between $1 and $5 so that larger funds and investment firms can buy in and we escape penny land with a development contract and funding in place.
Well, it is curious that several weeks after the 8-K info, we have a PR on last day of 2nd Qtr regarding the info in the filing.
What we know is that they are communicating back and forth. Having to read between the lines, it is all conjecture, but we've gotten some steady PRs, some of which deal with new elements not really previously discussed or in the Jan open letter and most of the PR news we are getting seems rather after the fact, so let's look at a few pieces:
Feb 3 PR - Filing of Patent for Activating NR2F6 Silenced CAR-T cell for solid tumors (we are 4 months down the line)
Feb 17 PR - Checkpoint inhibitor found to stimulate key immune system I-17 and I-18
Feb 24 PR - Completes Preclinical Experimentation for siRNA NR2F6 Checkpoint Inhibitor, this in cooperation with Dr. Kesari for new IND.
March 23 PR - tCellVax IND submitted which is culmination of the previous 3 PRs it seems. We are 2.5 months out from this IND filing without an update?
April 28 PR - HemaXellerate update (delayed or after the fact of new study in Mexico with positive results already known by company). So company is now delaying release of positive info for whatever reasons.
May 3 PR - 1 month data from HemaX in Mexico showing positive results reveals that April 28th PR release shows they delayed PR about the licensing of clinical trial in Mexico. (Orphan drug status applied for in Jan and we've had no update in that regard).
May 19 PR - ucVax I don't think anyone saw this coming. Universal donor development program started. Now this wasn't in Jan open letter of priorities, so it is somewhat likely that the focus to begin this development may be fruit of the Eli Lily Open Drug Development interest and/or the NCATs research or RGBP wouldn't focus funding on something that wasn't laid out a priority for the year. I.E., this may be a very promising interest partner development.
June 2 PR - Small Molecule Drug Screening Program targeting NR2F6 and using identified libraries of compounds.
June 7 PR - Hiring of Objective Capital Partners to negotiate selling, licensing or partnership developments. (I orginally thought this was in light of HemaXellerate Mexico development, but in light of the fact that they had been cooperating with Eli Lily's compound research library since Feb as someone posted, this hiring may very well be linked to one or more aspects of the NR2F6 small molecule development program and its much broader market potential, which would be very good news indeed, since the release of PRs seem to be delayed until after the facts are in.
Now the fact that an 8-K revealed the RGBP - Eli Lily program arrangements, but no PR with a PR coming out last week may or may not indicate that RGBP and Eli-Lily are close to some type of further agreement regarding research development around NR2F6, including the tCellVax IND and/or ucVax preclinical development.
The 2 PRs in succession on June 14th and June 16th about Small Molecule Drug Screening obviously tried to drive home that this was very significant news in their minds and while they didn't lay out a lot of specifics, in the context of the timing of all the previous PRs, they clearly expected a much larger market reaction.
2 weeks later, they finally release news on Eli-Lily cooperation.
That may or may not indicate we are a couple weeks away from news of some type of licensing or monetary related news. They wouldn't have hired Objective Capital Partners with a retainer and monthly payments unless one or more of the INDs and patents had significant value in their minds at this point.
So, while we don't have the hard facts, and we have curious silence on dCellVax, ODD for HemaXellerate and no update on the tCellVax IND, clearly the experiments with Kesari, NCATs and Eli-Lily have been bearing fruit and uncovering more venues of development pipeline possibilities of which we should have something more concrete I would expect sometime in this, the 3rd Qtr.
Been away on vacation, but saw the Eli Lilly PR. Since RGBP had previously filed or released info on participating with Eli Lilly drug discovery program, can someone point out for us what is new and significant in this latest PR that differs from the previously released info?
Hopefully, that "non-dilutive" financing as we've had our fill of family shares.
RGBP could possibly be sitting on significant news for a variety of things:
- results of Dr. Kesari's experiments for dCellVax which were to be used in responding to FDA questions on IND within Q2 of 2016
- 3 month results for HemaXellerate trials going on in Mexico
- Orphan Drug Status application results for HemaXellerate filed in Jan 2016
- FDA response to IND for tCellVax checkpoint inhibitor filed March 23, 2016 using siRNA silenced NR2F6
- results of experiments for ucVax that began in May 2016
PRs over last couple of months have pointed out new things and given us news on specific positive developments, but have not addressed some of the older outstanding issues and filings. Obviously, a lot more has happened behind the scenes than we are aware of. Hopefully, most of it will turn out to be good news. Would be nice to have a follow up on Dr. Kesari, dCellVax and whether he plans on development of dCellVax IND for gliomas as previously indicated as a possibility.
RGBP could possibly be sitting on significant news for a variety of things:
- results of Dr. Kesari's experiments for dCellVax which were to be used in responding to FDA questions on IND within Q2 of 2016
- 3 month results for HemaXellerate trials going on in Mexico
- Orphan Drug Status application results for HemaXellerate filed in Jan 2016
- IND response for tCellVax checkpoint inhibitor filed March 23, 2016 using siRNA silenced NR2F6
- results of experiments for ucVax that began in May 2016
PRs over last couple of months have pointed out new things and given us news on specific positive developments, but have not addressed some of the older outstanding issues and filings. Obviously, a lot more has happened behind the scenes than we are aware of. Hopefully, most of it will turn out to be good news. Would be nice to have a follow up on Dr. Kesari, dCellVax and whether he plans on development of dCellVax IND for gliomas as previously indicated as a possibility.
Yes, there seems to be a lot of pieces in place that could potentially create a bright future for RGBP. I just wish they would connect the dots, be more consistent and timely in follow ups for things submitted (still no dCellVax IND follow up for data submitted nor any news on Jan filing of HemaX ODD etc.) and create momentum and buzz with the PRs instead of facts without how the facts came about etc.
If news and updates on news were issued on a regular and timely basis it would create greater confidence for investors to see that the company is being transparent and we know the ups and downs.
For example, not commenting at all on the filing for ODD for HemaX 5 months after the fact makes people wonder. Is the company incompetent, was the filing rejected, did the FDA lose the filing, did the filing get lost in the mail, did the FDA want more experiments and data....
I'd rather have bad news or news of the delay and why and the action to resolve than just perturbing silence.
Since RGBP is paying out 10K/month for a company to license or sell something, one thing seems certain: 1. either RGBP is serious about non dilution and has something worth selling or 2. they've given up on being able to locate funds themselves and are desperately in need of funds to stay afloat and so are going outside.
Seems to me that with the promising initial results in the NR2F6 research (something I saw from the early stages as being the main potential for future income), and the fact that if they keep issuing shares, they reduce partnership interest to some extent, that they are willing to sell off other assets they don't have the money to develop in order to get the money or partner to move all aspects of NR2F6 forward, which is fine with me. Just give me the updates and some of the specifics as to how things have come about. Who and where were the activators of NR2F6 discovered, for example?
Other companies give investors a lot more of the plans, timing and progress updates. RGBP now seems in a mode of only good news when they can give it. The rest is mysteriously silent.
Like Kfox mentioned again today, without news of partnerships or funding, we go nowhere on Koos' or Lander's news. Why don't they put in the PR how these things were discovered, such as "our research program with NCATs has been successful with multiple hits for compounds..." or if not NCATs, then "Our recent enrollment in Eli Lilly's compound drug research program is proving very fruitful for the company..."
Since we don't hear of C. Ichim anymore, who and where are these "discoveries" coming from and why should the source be such a secret if they want partnerships from larger entities?
They give us statements and news which, if true, is very good news indeed, but without the reasons and sources, it lacks depth and impact. I think if either NCATS or Eli - Lilly programs are where this is being validated, then mentioning that fact in the PR would go a long way in generating more interest and investment.
Of course, unless we tie a reverse split into a major news/partnership deal, the larger investment firms can't come in anyway, so we seem to have a long way to go. Certainly, it can turn in a day, but when Koos and Landers release PRs that don't give basic facts of when, how, where, they don't seem to have much effect.
Koos isn't making these discoveries and I don't think Lander is the scientist behind it all, so why not mention who and where and create some buzz? Unless they are worried that the IP would be highly susceptible to leakage as a result, it would be nice to know how all this is coming about.
Haven't heard from Kesari, dCellVax data in a long time and we are beyond the 3 month check point for the HemaX results in Mexico. Should still be more news coming this month.
And oh, still no news on the Orphan Drug Status filing from January. The fact the company doesn't seem interested in keeping those following the company updated and these types of things also leaves questions as to what is really going on.
To have news and the volume we had yesterday and not be higher is depressing.
Schuller, I'm not against all bonuses. Not all bonuses are fair, should be accepted blindly by shareholders or are good for a company just because they are commonplace. I have given my reasons in the past why I am against these bonuses of 10 M shares each given to Koos, Cavens and Lander.
- 1st, they were not part of their written contracts (this we know from Cavens hiring and listing of milestone shares - not there). If they were part of Koos, Cavens contract, then they should have been issued immediately as milestone shares, but they weren't, they were issued two Qtrs after the FDA approval of HemaX and the PR was clear on "the reason" for the bonuses.
-2nd, the shares issued were preferred shares when common shares were trading at .10/share and preferred are objectively more valuable. So at a minimum, they gave themselves a million dollars in value each at a time when the company is struggling for funding - something Cavens and Lander both were specifically hired to do as part of their job. But even though outside of the friends and family share giving, we know nothing of Cavens raising any money and there is no funds raised yet by Lander in any PR, but hell, let's give him a million dollars in shares because he came on board. Or were they shares to keep him quiet? Lander's contract is clear on milestone shares and he is to receive bonuses when a product is at stage 2 of a human trial or he brings in millions of dollars of funding for the company from new sources. Now that we know they've hire OCP to do that basically because Cavens and Lander have not, what's the merit for Lander to get $1M?
-3rd, this is purely reading between the lines unlike 1 and 2, but because of 1 and 2 above, these bonus shares smell to me and when management gives themselves bonus shares 6 months after the reason given for those shares, it doesn't jive with me. My reading: Koos, Cavens and Lander realized they weren't going to succeed in bringing in the funds necessary to carry HemaX forward on their own, so they discussed getting an outside firm and moving in the current direction - licensing or selling off parts of the company or the company as a whole (Yes, that's in the contract with OCP to the tune of a minimum $250,000 payment to OCP if it occurs). So, in order not to risk getting into an agreement with larger entities where they might not be able to give themselves bonuses later to their likings, they made up the reason to give themselves a big piece of pie now before entering into any agreements, even though those shares were not milestone shares.
And they did it after promising shareholders in January of seeking non-dilutive funding and ending the discount share programs. So giving themselves 30 million shares 3 months later and 4 months after HemaX approval and including Lander who I do not see as being critical to that achievement doesn't go over well to me as a justified and company enhancing aspect seen by others and other companies as justified within a well managed company.
Also, just to note, the 30 million plus angel shares have not been out for almost 2 years. They have not been released to trade in full for even one year yet. Issued mainly between Jan 2015 and Mar 2015 with a six month restriction, they were not fully tradeable until Sept 2015. So we are 9 months after the fact with 30 million common clearly not traded in that time. Let's hope those that hold them are greedy and won't sell under a $1.00, but that's a Las Vegas bet.
Let's hope OCP can really leverage the science to strike deals that bring in the funds to carry the products forward and really add value to the company.
The fact that they have a $10,000/month retainer hopefully means deals are anticipated and likely to happen in the coming months or sooner. Most likely in my mind is the licensing of HemaX in light of the Mexican trials.
I'm hoping for a $1 share price, but actually at this point would be delighted to hit .50 before end of year.
Another way to look at it is: who do you think will carry more leverage and credibility to the table for negotiations, Koos and Cavens or OCP?
Who do you think will get more value on the dollar?
If the answer is OCP should get a higher value by at least 5% overall, then they've already paid for their services and we lose nothing in the deal.
Personally, I'd rather have someone else at this point. Cavens and Koos just gave themselves 10 million preferred shares each for the FDA approval of HemaX after 3 years of getting to an approval and having given themselves tons of shares or buying of shares at 60-80% discounts. Do you think they are going to negotiate at this point in light of shareholder value?
I think you better buy the seeds right now, they'll be ready in time for the wedding and something you can afford!
Congratulations!
Hopefully RGBP can cover college expenses for the family.
Well, the news and wording is a welcome and positive direction. Time will tell on the results. I can only hope that going public with this commitment to non dilutive fund-raising with an outside firm is an indicator that more science is developed than we are aware of since otherwise there would not be anything to fundraise or partner with.
Thanks for the repost Schuller. If you have that much invested here and are still pretty confident for the future, it somewhat renews my hope. I have pretty much committed to holding on to the end of this year for better or worse and then re-evaluating if nothing had really progressed and there was anything left of my investment. 2015 was a year that greatly renewed my hope and expectations. Early 2016 letter from Lander was encouraging, but several moves after that, especially with all the free shares including preferreds to people such as Cavens (what financing has he brought in and that's all he's paid to do?) really felt like a body blow.
I'm glad you have connections that still show hope for the future.
Has anyone else noticed that recent PRs seem to be timed only after they know something for sure? They issued a PR that they had licensed HemaX to research center in Mexico and then less than 10 days later we got a PR on the 1 month test results. In other words, they were only going to let us know about it if it was successful.
Then we get PR on May 24th that they have filed to uplist and on May 31st it is already included on the uplisted tickers.
Seems to me that PRs are being delayed and released upon assurance of positive results, even though many reiterate here the obligation of reporting negative results within 4 days. Orphan Drug status was applied for back in Jan with 90 days being the seemingly maximum time it takes for a response. With the IND already approved, why would it take any longer and if approved, why not state so when you need money?
I can't answer, but my only hope is that it has been approved and they have been working on some deal that needed assurance that their filings and status are okay with SEC and therefore the funding was dependent on uplisting to OTCQB where such reporting status is needed and reflected as a positive for those companies. And that we will therefore hear much more within the next 2 weeks.
This is complete conjecture, but about the only positive spin I can put on not hearing about Orphan Drug Status, not hearing about dCellVax IND data submittal, not hearing any news about new NR2F6 IND (past 30 days) etc.
With 7 more months in the year, I concur that unless by end of year there are substantial developments (clinical trial initiated, a 2nd IND approved etc), RGBP will be much lower at end of year than it began with little reason to hope we can trust what is going on behind the scenes.
Funding is the key issue left to resolve. RGBP has some good partnerships in place for pipeline discovery and advancement, but funding for all this is the great unknown. If Lander really is able to build "non-dilutive" financing through grants, licensing agreements or some type of revolving credit instead of insider share distribution, this could rise quickly. But until we get some solid and positive news on funding for the pipeline, we will have to wait for positive price movement.
Very good news, but with this PR addressing HemaXellerate, why wasn't HemaXellerate's ODD status addressed in some way. Many on board say if ODD were to be denied, they'd have to report it within 4 days of notice. Now almost 4 months have passed since the filing and I would expect a PR on HemaX to address the status of ODD in some way to inform us whether they are still waiting or have heard something...
Certainly would be nice if this positive volume precedes a nice Tuesday PR of significant developments within the company in relation to ODD, dCellVax IND data filing or tCellVax positive FDA response or all of the above.
Gets more interesting by the minute, doesn't it?
From today's PR of TSOI
Not only is Harry Lander now CEO of MolecuVax, but Thomas Ichim is on Scientific Advisory Board and they are beginning clinical trials at the same center in Tijuana as for HemaX.
Furthermore, T. Ichim speaks about his research on the BORIS method of killing cancer cells which MolecuVax is based on (I thought T. Ichim's BORIS IP belonged to RGBP? Is MolecuVax based on T. Ichim's IP bought by RGBP, but changed slightly, or is this being done in MX because the patent is only valid in US? I have no idea, but this musical chairs of scientists and Board Members and now President being CEO of another competing company simultaneously just doesn't look good for us.
check this link MolecuVax trials
All's quiet on the Western Front.
Posting has slowed down and so has trading. 1 month, 1 week into 2nd Qtr.
As this point, within next 7 weeks therefore, we should expect any or all of the following:
- Filing of dCellVax testing data with response to FDA on behalf of IND
- Update on filing of tCellVax (NR2F6) IND in March
- Possible update on Pan Am Cancer center (next 5 patients) on in human testing of HemaXellerate
- NCATS compound research testing (although some or all of this testing data might just go into the IND research / FDA filings without us knowing whether or not a new IND was based on NCATS or not
- Eli Lilly cooperative as to whether there are any "hits" through that program as well.
Whether any or all of this news will move the PPS up significantly is anyone's guess at this point and depends on company's ability and way of raising funds for ongoing needs.
Ok, got it.
Here's a concern, if neither T. or C. Ichim is employed anymore by RGBP, then RGBP no longer has an in house scientist to carry ongoing research forward and we are back in the pre 2015 scenario which concerns me.
Granted, the relationship with NIH / NCATS and Dr. Kesari under contract to perform testing on DCellVax and maybe tCellVax is great, but without an internal scientist doing other day to day research coordination, I think the company will not have the same potential of bringing all this forward in an efficient manner. And the loss of the two scientists whose research and IP led to the current pipeline is not an encouraging sign.
Aplastic Anemia can occur and be the result of chemotherapy, but we do not know what this control group of patients consisted of.
GM, I don't know what criteria has to be met for aplastic anemia, but as recall, the IND filed by RGBP had a qualified subset of aplastic anemia patients who had not responded to a certain treatment.
I'm just saying that the PR clearly wanted to communicate that this investigative study is outside their control and criteria, so it might not be a perfect match to what they have to follow under the IND for US trials, that's all.
Since they had "no control" over the patient trial, can we even be sure that the patients suffered from aplastic anemia? It may be that Koos and Lander were cautious because these patients suffered from the effects of chemo depleting blood cell counts, but were not necessarily in the pool of patients RGBP has the go ahead for in aplastic anemia. Just a thought.
But even this doesn't take away from the positive that the tests were positive, the patients tolerated HemaX and there are patients that can benefit from HemaX.
News from OTC travels slowly outside of immediate board members here. And although price of company keeps investment firms from buying in here, I expect that over the next couple of days, this news may stop the bleeding and push the PPS back on the road towards .20 instead of towards .05.
We are no longer in the theoretical nor on the level of rats. Results in humans should be more effective in giving the company some positive movement one would hope.
Crocs, I think your answer is in the presentation of today's PR.
Could be. But the fact they don't break much down leaves us to guessing only.
We continue not knowing how close they are, how much money is needed or where the burn of money really is. Certainly, they felt good enough to delay and give themselves bonus shares that won't hit financials until next
Qtr in early April for HemaXellerate clearance, even without study.
I emailed the Ms. Dorsee for clarification on whether "initiated" in the PR meant "already under way" or just "they came to RGBP with offer", but got no clarification, no response. Maybe someone else can try.
Wish they would outline for us at least in general where the $1M in cash raised and borrowed went over the past few months.
Probably why people dumped at open yesterday. Been an unfortunate pattern, but one reason why good news ends in the red. Company issues PR with news and all those in the know dump some shares before the bad news hits the next day.
I can't imagine it was the real deal, putting in your real full name as a user name. That said, I would gladly welcome a real conversation with the real T. Ichim, but I imagine all the disclosure agreements signed would make the conversation not amount to much.
I can't imagine T. Ichim having time to monitor and discuss issues on this board.
Many of us invested because of the progress and pipeline that was going forward with the hiring of T. and C. Ichim. With RGBP being so advanced and progressing so well, why would you and your sister, sell your IP to RGBP and then leave?
I can't understand that, especially when the original contracts signed were for 3 years and were cut short in a year or less. Why leave a company on the brink of greatness?
Amazing to me that news rarely seems to create any momentum or upswing as of late. Very discouraging. As previously pointed out, the Pan Am Cancer Treatment Center is both local to San Diego (in sense of a 40 min drive; 26 min from RGBP La Mesa office) and it has on its board current or former Scientific Board members.
In other words, they are working with the people who have been advising them and using, rather agreeing to them carrying on human trials in a non exclusive manner. It may be that the Pan Am human trial data would not be accepted by USA FDA (I'll let the experts comment on that), but since it is a NON-exclusive agreement, it doesn't prevent RGBP from setting up a US based clinical trial in the Q3. Right now they don't have money, but if the Mexican trial begins shortly (or has begun) and RGBP gets positive results at the one month period follow up, then that data alone will be a carrot to attract US BP to finance a US based trial and Pan Am can go forward in Mexico. So I don't see from the PR why this news causes the stock to drop to 52 week lows.
If it were an exclusive agreement, I would read it as a US failure, 2nd choice option, but since HemaX trials were not to begin until Q3 and these are people associated with the Company, why would it be seen as negative?
Thanks for the post. Very sad to see that she is no longer on board.
Yes, she and her brother signed over their main life's research to RGBP under a 3 year contract and her milestone shares were to fully invest in June 2016.
The fact that she and her brother are no longer with RGBP and no longer attached to their life's passion and research smells to me. The PR claiming T. Ichim left for health reasons and the company's silence on C. Ichim no longer there when last year she was the star of the show is not a good sign no matter how you slice it. Did they leave of their own accord? Highly doubtful. Did Koos find a way/means to get rid of them as he did Christopher Mizer a couple years back, more likely.
I don't have a good feeling about this at all and I think Koos is behind it in a non positive way. To me this is a blow even if the science goes forward. Not a positive development in my view.
And others will question. How does this affect Kesari who is now main researcher for NR2F6 and dCellVax and maybe tCellVax. I think he and C. Ichim were involved in the same institute. If he and other collaborators see a fellow research scientist treated unfairly, it most likely will have a negative impact on the future relationship of other current collaborators.
Wow. Do you know that for certain? T. Ichim leaving was in PR or 8K or both, but never saw anything about C. Ichim's leaving.