News Focus
News Focus
icon url

norisknorewards

06/24/25 3:40 PM

#772688 RE: FeMike #772683

"I'm saying nothing with certainty."

exactly, just pure bs made up speculations that swing to the negative for nothing other than nefarious purposes.
icon url

Steady_T

06/24/25 3:48 PM

#772690 RE: FeMike #772683

Here is what Grok3 has to say on the subject.

This suggests that CHM is likely to be involved for possibly positive or negative reasons, but likely to be involved.

Does the MHRA refer all MAA recommendations to the CHM both positive and negative?




The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) does not refer all Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) recommendations to the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM) for both positive and negative outcomes. The referral process depends on specific circumstances outlined in the MHRA’s guidance and procedures. Here's a detailed explanation based on available information:

Positive Recommendations: The MHRA typically does not refer all positive MAA recommendations to the CHM. If the MHRA’s assessment concludes that the application meets the necessary quality, safety, and efficacy requirements and the risk-benefit balance is positive, the application may proceed to approval without mandatory CHM consultation. However, the MHRA may consult the CHM or its Expert Advisory Groups (EAGs) during the assessment process for complex or innovative applications (e.g., new active substances, biosimilars, or applications for conditional or exceptional circumstances authorisations) to seek advice on quality, safety, or efficacy. This is particularly common during the initial assessment phase (up to Day 90) or for applications under the rolling review or 150-day assessment processes. If the application is straightforward and approvable after resolving any issues (e.g., through responses to Requests for Further Information (RFIs)), the MHRA can grant the authorisation without further CHM involvement.
Negative Recommendations: The MHRA is more likely to refer an MAA to the CHM when it proposes to refuse the application, particularly if there are unresolved major objections or deficiencies that present a potential serious risk to public health. For example, if safety, quality, or efficacy concerns remain after the applicant’s responses to RFIs, or if no response is received within the specified timeline (e.g., 60 days for established medicines), the MHRA may refer the application to the CHM for advice on refusal. In such cases, the CHM provides a provisional opinion, and the applicant receives a letter outlining the reasons for potential refusal. The applicant then has the opportunity to make written or oral representations to the CHM. The CHM’s final advice informs the MHRA’s decision to grant or refuse the MAA.
Specific Scenarios:
For applications under the International Recognition Procedure (IRP), if major objections persist at Day 110, the MHRA seeks formal advice from the CHM on approvability, reverting to the standard 210-day national procedure timetable.
For established medicines, if deficiencies are considered to pose a serious public health risk or if no response is received within 60 days of an RFI, the MHRA refers the application to the CHM for advice on refusal.
For Article 29 referrals (related to mutual recognition or decentralised procedures), the MHRA may adopt the CHMP or CMDh opinion (positive or negative) unless UK-specific changes are needed, but this applies specifically to Northern Ireland until 31 December 2024, and from 1 January 2025 for UK-wide applications under certain conditions.
Exceptions and Context: The MHRA’s decision to consult the CHM depends on the complexity of the application, the nature of the medicinal product (e.g., new active substances, biologics, or advanced therapies), and whether significant issues arise during the assessment. For instance, applications for conditional marketing authorisations (CMAs) or exceptional circumstances MAs may involve CHM consultation to assess eligibility or unresolved issues, but this is not automatic for all positive recommendations. The CHM’s role is advisory, and the MHRA makes the final decision, considering CHM advice when it is sought.
In summary, the MHRA refers MAA recommendations to the CHM primarily when there are significant concerns (e.g., potential refusal due to safety, quality, or efficacy issues) or for complex applications requiring expert input. Positive recommendations may not always require CHM referral unless specific issues or complexities arise during the assessment process. For the most accurate and up-to-date guidance, applicants should refer to the MHRA’s official website or contact RIS.NA@mhra.gov.uk for clarification.
icon url

Investor082

06/24/25 3:49 PM

#772691 RE: FeMike #772683

If we do not have approval in August then I’d also
lean towards your thought process. Either way, a lawsuit is inevitable this Fall.
icon url

StonkMaster

06/24/25 3:58 PM

#772693 RE: FeMike #772683

Ooooooooo, say it ain't soooooooo
icon url

attilathehunt

06/24/25 4:17 PM

#772698 RE: FeMike #772683

I think the company believes it is protected from needing to PR the referral by its prior statements confirming that they will not discuss the status of the application until the MHRA has made its decision. The MHRA, even if the MAA has been referred to CHM, still has not made a decision.

I hope that is not true since I certainly believe it would be considered a material event by everyone since the news of it would certainly impact share price.
icon url

dennisdave

06/24/25 4:31 PM

#772703 RE: FeMike #772683

The total dilution for this month so far is 5,117,673 shares, which is the lowest we've seen in recent months.


To me, this supports my theory that they have been referred to CHM.

completely utter rubbish conclusion, just laughable. When they sell a lot of shares, you are complaining (and so am I with good reason) and when they sell a lower number, you are complaining.

Your correlation between a low number of shares being sold and the idea that no one wants to buy them because of a CHM referral is more than absurd. I’ve seen better logic from an eight-year-old. If anything, the silence and reduced dilution could just as easily point to an embargo period during a pending MHRA decision, or simply cautious capital management while they wait. This isn’t inherently bullish or bearish — but calling it an “indication” of trouble? That’s laughable unless it’s backed by something real.

Btw my contact spoke with Les last week. They are fully prparing still for commercialization so he was told (for whats worth)

And btw if its true what you say and those that finance the company have been told in an NDA about the MHRA having big doubts about approving, then there would be huge selling volume for that kind of news would not be convined with a small group. They would sell and so would their friends.
icon url

BurtMacklinfbi

06/24/25 5:11 PM

#772723 RE: FeMike #772683

Posting like your opinion means anything. Thanks for the laugh this evening buddy 🤣