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.
As I just posted, the audited financials are for the 2 years PRIOR. how does this theory have merit?
this theory doesn't hold water.
the audited financials are for 2 yeas PRIOR. nothing about 2021 would be revealed in them.
I agree, it's absurd, but it's stated plain as day in the most recent quarterly filing. The only reason to believe otherwise would require you to then believe they're lying about the status of the audit in a legal disclosure.
…what a risk that would be, and to what end?
I guarantee the audit isn't complete yet, as the third quarter disclosure filed on the 15th included an update which explicitly stated: "The audit of both years is still in process."
Appreciate your thoughtful input. I agree, the ITV-1 trial results that were published leave a lot to be desired. (I’ve also shared this sentiment before myself.)
In some cases, it's not clear which are the patients with just the antiviral treatment (control) and which are the ones with the antiviral plus the therapeutic drug (test). The drug patients seem to gain more CD4 cells at the end of the trial, but it's not a staggering increase. In fact, even the control groups CD4 cells go up initially. Stranger still, the CD8 cells (the cells that kill viral infected cells) go down more in the patients without the therapeutic.
There are also a couple of anomalies. It says one of the excluding factors is patients with CD4 cells under 200, yet it says that 3 of the patients in the test group were under 200.
I could go on, but it all points to them needing to do more testing, and more thorough testing.
In any case, I agree with your point about Savov’s intent and his focus on IPF specifically…this could very well be a telling factor suggesting his claims might be dubious.
I'm not defending them, and yes — of course my goal was to make a point, which is that there's no reason to believe that any company has submitted a proposal to Enzolytics concerning their animal mAbs (based on the language used in yesterday's PR). That might happen; I hope it happens; but that's not what was stated.
Also, I think any investor should be critical (or at least pose questions) when a medical journal publishes an article stating the company has a product in clinical trials, which as far as we know is untrue.
Clarity matters.
You might be right S - although I believe the word "exploring" was carefully chosen, and as such had the intended effect on many readers. That's fine, that's what press releases are for: to promote the company.
In any case, I hope someone in the target audience that might be in a position to explore such a proposal or collaboration reaches out accordingly.
To be clear, the company never said they "have" proposals from multiple companies. They stated they are "actively exploring proposals for collaborations and partnerships with U.S. and foreign veterinary companies…"
They didn't say they are "reviewing", or are "considering", or anything else that would suggest they have already received such proposals from any one or multiple companies. It reads as a forward looking statement, with the implication being they are seeking (or exploring) such proposals.
To that end, this PR reads as a billboard advertisement to companies who might be interested in such a collaboration or partnership.
I wish I had never stumbled into this…my life as we know it will never be the same. I'll end end up as some kind of outcast OTC Julian Assange.
While we're on the subject of ridiculous things, I'll have to share with you sometime a couple of the stories I have on this ticker and personal experiences with some of those involved. Godfather, Dr Chandra, etc.
Wait just a second…a sensible and realistic perspective while simultaneously hopeful and optimistic? I think I've officially seen everything with this ticker! ;)
Too funny. I saw a post the other day claiming that social media was silencing ENZC, and that big pharma is colluding with the government to suppress the company.
*whoosh* right over my head...
Sorry, not familiar with any of the personalities here. I've heard it all with this ticker — especially coming from the Discord group(s) — so virtually nothing surprises me anymore!
I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a "senior analyst" on any of the ENZC Discords. There are plenty of inexperienced and overpersuaded people posing as such, however.
— Opinion from an ENZC long
Indeed, you're right about that ...
I don't know just how novel ENZC's methodology for discovering (patentable) immutable sites is or how valuable those sites might be (IP), but Dr. Chandra did say their process is "unique" and that no else has done it before. (That said, AI has been used in biotech going as far back as the 90s.)
The value of those immutable sites will be determined by whether or not ENZC can develop safe and effective treatments/cures, or if other pharma companies are keen on buying or licensing ENZC's IP (likely dependent on certain development milestones). Hopefully, Samsung can help ENZC expedite the arduous process to clinical trials, starting from cell line development of their mAbs through regulatory filings and IND. I don't imagine that will be done before Q2 2022, so my eyes are on ITV-1 as the nearest candidate for clinical trials, and audited financials along with application to QB as the next catalyst.
We're in agreement on these facts.
As I shared previously (which sparked the debate), the process ENZC is using to discover immutable sites is not patentable.
That said, the company likely developed a technology and/or process that integrates with Intel's toolkit, hence their earlier partnership with Denver Scientific USA (who participated in the white paper), which was founded by Purvi Patel, an AI data scientist at AUM Biosciences.
Regardless, as Dr. Chandra stated himself, the process by which they are able to identify immutable sites is not patentable, although it is presumably somewhat novel — for the time being anyway.
Too bad the reality is lost on him. It should be obvious that one of the key purposes in developing a white paper is the promotion of a product, technology, service, etc.
This is why Intel partnered with ENZC to create "Optimizing Empathetic AI to Cure Deadly Diseases" — to illustrate a unique and adequate use case of Intel's technology in a field the company is eager to continue its expansion.
Siloing off this technology would be entirely counter-productive to the company's business pursuits.
I'll never understand peoples' determination to live in fantasy land, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
Whew! You must be able to see China your head's buried so deep in the sand.
You don't even have the slightest clue of what you're talking about. For starters, ENZC's AI platform integrates with Intel's AI deep learning toolkit and runs on Intel's PIUMA hardware.
But hey…don't let me stop you from enjoying the view. Ignorance truly is bliss!
Are you serious or are you trolling? … I literally witnessed Chandra say it, along with dozens of other investors, many of whom took notes which were cross-referenced and compiled for the community. (The same notes I just shared with you).
You're free to make up whatever you like, just know that you're not only wrong, you're willfully ignorant.
I just posted a link to a Google doc containing detailed notes from the Q&A session. (You're welcome, by the way.)
From Chandra's lips to God's ears, he said the process itself is not patentable. Why are you arguing with me, much less changing the context of your misunderstanding in effort to keep an argument going?
Dr. Chandra absolutely did say that during the Q&A session following the first Hicks interview.
"The AI platform can’t be patented – we’ve discussed that with IP lawyers. But our methodology is unique. Nobody has done that before."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Bbw-FUTRoXHOquZopXYPf1Wxbrge8dwhsRLHaZZAdg
I'm pretty sure he did say exactly this during the first Hicks interview. (it might have been in the private Q&A session that followed.)
Indeed. I just want to see the announcement of clinical trials on any one of their candidates. I'd guess we are 6-9 months out at the earliest for either their HIV or covid mAbs, but clinical trials for ITV-1 should begin much sooner. (at least, based on what we've been told.)
on a somewhat related note, did you happen to my post about the recent c&en article featuring Chandra? it's a statement at odds with what we know. unfortunately, I've not been able to get clarification from the publication or ENZC.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166352319
I believe I recall Chandra saying the process they use in their AI discovery is not patentable, only the immutable sites discovered as a result thereof.
I appreciate your sensibly realistic take and agree with all of your points.
1968cuda, nearly 1300 posts all trashing ENZC …
don't you have anything better to do?
Read my post again. It was specified:
What HIV mAb does ENZC currently have in clinical trials?
People would rather argue PPS than discuss information?
It seems no one here is interested in discussing the fact that the company COO is reported to have said they have a clinical HIV mAb in trials. Instead, it appears that people would rather argue about which way the PPS is going.
c&en Discovery Report featuring Dr. Gaurav Chandra …
Perhaps this already made the rounds here, but I’ve been unable to find traction in discussing this elsewhere.
Has anyone seen the recent Discovery Report magazine issue “Antivirals for The Future”, published by c&en in Q3 2021? The magazine features an article titled “8 experts weigh in on the future of antivirals.” The first expert featured is Dr. Chandra and includes this excerpt from the author:
a lot of overdue milestones need to be addressed, along with recent updates. I made a list of some of the more significant subjects. hopefully light is shed on these before the end of the month.
—
HIV mAbs: should have finished testing in strasbourg 3 months ago and animal studies should be well underway (originally set to take place at national primate research center, new location [and status] unknown).
covid mAbs: production should have been completed in July or August and "fast-tracked" clinical studies should either be underway or already scheduled
HLTV-1/2 mAbs: should be either already successfully created or at least 80% progressed by now
HLTV-1 mAbs: update on the “letter of intent” that was signed with Creative Biolabs for licensing and commercialization of HLTV-1 mAbs (PR on 7/20)
ITV-1: update on the status of the previously reported “completed arrangements/agreements” with Dahnson & Clinic Design to advance ITV-1 to clinical trials (PR on 7/29)
Update on the distributorship license for ITV-1 that included a $2MM investment in exchange for Series E shares, $1MM cash, and 50% ownership of the undisclosed licensing entity that was valued (by someone) at $8MM
**also: status of audited financials and the currently ongoing lawsuits
hey! disappointing to see what's happened with iBio. I was lucky to get out with a very small profit at the beginning of the year, despite my first buy being around $2.50. I pop into $ibio ST every now and then and still see the same old bulls repeating the same old mantras!
I unfortunately lost touch with livelarge. he had an ego the size of Texas, but rightfully so — I learned so much from him. really miss his insights
my first investment into ENZC was at .06, but I've bought all the way up to $.65
cheers, you're very welcome.
I saw a separate post from someone else about not trusting me and being "passive aggressive" … I couldn't care less. you expect and demand answers from people, then still aren't satisfied or appreciative when you get them. it's no wonder myself or others don't find this a particularly inviting community for discourse.
you're welcome. based on correspondence I had with enzc, the update on 8/25 to the"company news" section of their website was meant to address the issues surrounding Lonza, presumably this excerpt:
There are many highly qualified international CRO/CDMO companies engaged by Enzolytics. All are experts in their fields and fully capable of conducting the follow-on steps necessary to advance Enzolytics’ initial monoclonal antibodies to the production of pharmaceutical-grade material for animal and clinical trials. In the engagement of CROs/CDMOs as a part of the production of the Company’s targeted therapeutics, the application of the follow-on processes they provide comes into play subsequent to the production of monoclonal antibodies produced by Enzolytics and under the Company’s complete control.
if you're an investor or prospective investor in Lonza, perhaps. have you tried contacting enzc investor relations? if so, did they do their job?
ps - no one owes you anything, including myself. I didn't have to share my DD with you, but I did anyway, even despite your rudeness.
my guess would be that judging by how you interact with people when you want something, you aren’t very thoughtful or persuasive in your communication
a little courtesy in your request would be nice. I have nothing to prove to anyone, but here you are nevertheless:
https://ibb.co/8spYgqF
it was my email with lonza. here it is again — first is my email, then lonza’s IR reply:
I hope this email finds you well. I’m a shareholder with a few questions.
1. Are there any further details available regarding the future “additional Moderna products” that are a part of the collaboration agreement between Lonza and Moderna from May of last year that the company can disclose?
2. A press release was published in July outlining a work arrangement between Lonza and Enzolytics which was subsequently withdrawn due to inaccuracies. Is Lonza currently engaged in a service agreement with Enzolytics? If so, does the company intend to publish a PR detailing the agreement?
3. Is the cGMP facility in Guangzhou still on track to begin development of Pinteon’s Phase 1 clinical supply of PNT001 starting Q4 of this year?
Thanks for your time.
————
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your mail and questions.
1. The strategic collaboration with Moderna is a 10 years contract.
2. Lonza and Enzolytics are not pursuing their collaboration at this time. We wish Enzolytics every success with its ventures going forward.
3. The new Lonza Biologics facility in Guangzhou, China is operational since the second quarter 2021.
Kind regards,
the answer is pretty simple: hydroxychloroquine isn’t an effective treatment for covid.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/hydroxychloroquine-doesnt-benefit-hospitalized-covid-19-patients
that dude has been posting the same garbage for months. he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. he thought IBIO-200 was also going to toxicology.
a broken clock is right twice a day