UK 18:40 Friday, 23 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: The author has a short position in one or more of the shares mentioned. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
In the mid nineties the flagship of UK biotech was British Biotech a constituent of the FTSE 100 share index with a valuation of £1.5 billion. The company enjoyed the support of the leading healthcare analyst, Dr Ian White, and rode high on a supposed inhibitor for cancer called marimastat. In my swansong as a financial journalist I wrote a devastating critique in the Mail on Sunday in the summer of 1996 with on the record quotes from leading oncologists in Edinburgh and London. Subsequent investigations on both sides of the Atlantic found that the company “had wilfully misled the public about the progress of marimastat”. British Biotech collapsed.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
Alquemie
Very fair analysis. I don’t consider CIR to be as inherently dodgy as BB always seemed (I recall Keith McCullagh trying and failing to talk up the zacutex clinicals at a H&Q investor presentation before Dr Millar went nuclear), but there is a smack of “never mind the quality, feel the width” around the CC pipeline. As for “Navidgate”, I agree that this is likely to have implications for Mr Woodward’s future life science investment strategy (belief is never a good substitute for diligence).
In the interest of balance, the Aerocrine NiOx device is not completely useless as an asthma management tool (it measures nitric oxide, an indicator of inflammation, not CO2) but only for further investigation of “problem” asthmatics who don’t appear to benefit from inhaled steroids and not as a routine diagnostic tool suitable for primary care. Reimbursement is spotty, with only a few US state systems opting to cover testing. You could argue that uptake might be driven by the next generation of (very expensive) anti-cytokine inflammatory asthma therapies, but this won’t happen tomorrow, if ever.
The various generics/Mylan relationship should eventually generate cash, but it’s a competitive space with the originators hanging on to market share and Teva and others bringing their own generic versions to market. So, in short, Aerocrine is not a complete dog, but you are right to question current and future value.
As for allergy immunotherapy, you’re right to be sceptical regarding pricing and reimbursement. Injected and sublingual products are covered but only where conventional medication has failed (as has “allergy avoidance”- not deep sixing Tibbles might void your coverage). Given the history of allergy immunotherapy clinical and approval failure over the last 20 years, I’d apply a heftier than usual discount rate to CIR’s early pipeline.
One for the shorters.