ATM - A2 Milk Corporation Limited

[MAC]

I would agree with that Black Knat, it is clinical trials that health professionals have to trust and rely on.

Most clinical trials are funded by the company producing the product, whether it is drugs, or medical devices or milk, nobody should have any issue with ATM funding trials.

I personally though don’t think it is in the interests of ATM to actually do them, they don’t need to perform trials as unlike with medical products, the public are capable of trying and testing a2 milk for themselves and will continue buying or otherwise at their own discretion based on their perception of results.

In performing large trials ATM would be taking the A1 milk companies on head on, sometimes that can be a successful marketing strategy, but I don’t believe ATM are big enough yet to see that through, perhaps once they have a good solid foothold in Europe and the US in a several year’s time.

Until then debate on the matter is king and the more of it the better.

Debate >> Awareness >> Sales

[NT001]

This statement is simply false - as has been discussed before.

I do accept that a significant portion of Australians are prepared to pay extra for a2 milk, even without an established benefit accepted by mainstream health professionals. But that's Australians for you. Australians do have a slightly different cultural approach to NZ, and some other nations. In my observation there is quite a significant suspicion of doctors and science generally - we have that too - but perhaps to a lesser extent.

It's easy to say Australians are culturally crazy and prepared to pay ridiculous amounts for their milk for no valid reason, and to say "there is quite a significant suspicion of doctors and science generally" (about A1-A2).

But can anyone actually cite any "mainstream health professional" who advances scientific evidence rather than mere "suspicion" to try to cast doubt on the many clinical and other trials being published in peer-reviewed journals that show the A1-yielded peptide BCM7 is linked to health problems including digestive discomfort, autism and probably other wider human health issues?

Where are the scientific trials that produce evidence in rebuttal? There aren't any. Where are the statements by reputable scientists showing these trials to be producing false results? There aren't any. The only put-downs we see are from people who are not scientifically qualified in this specialist area and who distort the results in order to criticise them. Where are the responses from the "mainstream" dairy industry scientists with all their scientific resources showing fault with the "devil in the milk" thesis? There aren't any. They remain silent, and let PR agencies and suchlike commenters put out flawed and often scientifically absurd arguments on their behalf.

It is certainly true that "doctors and science generally" are slow to buy the A2 argument because it's a pretty big thing for them to swallow and it's complicated and they don't have time to read up on the facts and they prefer to accept the official line put out by the Food Safety Authority a decade ago when there was far less scientific evidence available and is now totally out of date but is still carried as gospel on its website.

When we have dozens of scientific papers pointing in one direction and not a single one rebutting them, are we to really put our faith in the views of those who just say they are not yet convinced? I'm still waiting to see a scientific paper that actually rebuts the A1-A2 argument.

[MAC]

Just been chatting with my broker, who says there does appear to be a big seller who is not up to any hanky-panky but is trying to ensure he/she gets a minimum of around 59-60c and is controlling the flow accordingly but will at some stage disappear. And meanwhile there are buyers who see that there are plenty of shares available at that price so why push the price up? Regarding the 3 shares at today's opening he thinks it's just someone filling an order to bring their holding up to a nice round 10,000 or so, and said the first trade for NZX today was similarly for just four shares. I told him that some of my mates are suspicious and wonder whether a T/O is in the works. His advice was to watch for any movements and declarations among the bigger shareholders. I'm personally not able to assess the credibilirty of all this, just passing on what he said.

Was there any inclination as to whom NT, just as a matter of idle curiosity ?

[nextbigthing]

Round figures.

660m shares total x 0.05 (disclosure threshold) = 33m shares. Ie someone can sell up to 33m shares with no disclosure.

Average volume 500000 shares a day (conservative - easily doing this).

33m / 0.5m per day = 66 days.

How long has this selling been going on for? A while! Therefore, THE END IS NIGH

[Harrie]

I'm not convinced MAC that clinical trials will prove much more than reaffirm the findings of human trials undertaken recently. There is still not a strong enough scientific correlation between A1 and all the alleged downsides that emanate from it.
Its all too long term to draw any immediate conclusions from the science.
What I think is far more relevant and especially in the UK is the immediate positive impact for ATM of conducting more of a trial for those who suffer from lactose intolerance.
This does not need to be scientific in terms of measuring stool consistency, bloating and the like, it just needs to be scientifically arranged as a professional study. Did A2 milk cause an adverse reaction. Did A1 cause an adverse reaction. Simple.
If the report I read NT is anything to go by then 75% of those who consider themselves lactose intolerant would benefit, and that represents about 15% of the total UK milk market.
This way you take the heat out of the A1 A2 debate in a different way. Commentators would not be able to deny the facts if in fact there was no reaction to A2 milk from those who originally thought that they were lactose intolerant.

[dingoNZ]

Round figures.

660m shares total x 0.05 (disclosure threshold) = 33m shares. Ie someone can sell up to 33m shares with no disclosure.

Average volume 500000 shares a day (conservative - easily doing this).

33m / 0.5m per day = 66 days.

How long has this selling been going on for? A while! Therefore, THE END IS NIGH

Assuming there is only one seller

[Harrie]

Round figures.

660m shares total x 0.05 (disclosure threshold) = 33m shares. Ie someone can sell up to 33m shares with no disclosure.

Average volume 500000 shares a day (conservative - easily doing this).

33m / 0.5m per day = 66 days.

How long has this selling been going on for? A while! Therefore, THE END IS NIGH

My understanding NBT is that once you achieve a 5% holding then its a change of 1% of total holding that needs to be reported. That's 6.6 million shares not 33m shares.(may need to be corrected on that)
What I am more unsure about is the time frame of when more or less than 1% change is required to be reported by those holding over 5%.

Assuming I am correct with the 1% reporting threshold then has there been a big change in shareholding not yet reported, or are there lots of less than 1% shareholdings among the bigger players who hold over 5% changing hands, or are there lots of less than 5% shareholders selling, or is there lots of selling and buying back going on with the same shareholder, or is someone manipulating the SP somehow through derivatives, or what?

[NT001]

It is not correct to dismiss the research studies as "inconclusive". They each relate to specific aspects of the A1 problem, and many are "conclusive". None of them purports to be conclusive about the totality of the entire debate, which would be expecting too much. But many are conclusive insofar as particular details are concerned, while others say there is evidence pointing to certain conclusions that have yet to be tested. They are all subject to scientific challenge if someone would like to challenge them, that's fine, but they are not being challenged.

There is no challenge, no debate, no dispute, about the fact that A1 milk yields the BCM7 peptide which can get into the bloodstream and can reach the brain and is linked with certain human health problems. Some people may say they remain to be convinced. That's fine, but no one is putting up evidence that it's incorrect. That doesn't necessarily have to be just because of a worldwide dairy industry conspiracy (although one can certainly surmise that such exists), it can easily be explained by laziness, ignorance or any number of other reasons.

A health benefit can be established by scientific findings, and can exist regardless of whether "mainstream health professionals" or anyone else happen to find it "convincing". Some of the health benefits are already established. To be aware of and draw attention to such scientific research is neither "unmeasured" (whatever that means) nor ignorant. The charge of ignorance can be better laid at those who dismiss the scientific findings but cannot put up any argument against them.

[NT001]

You clearly do not understand anything about scientific method. You should stick to posting on issues you actually know something about, whatever they may be, rather than repeatedly posting such dribble.

I think I have a fair understanding of both scientic method and the scientific issues involved here. But I'll leave it for others to draw their own conclusions, and will continue waiting with interest to see whether "scientific method" comes up with any challenge to the case against A1 milk and BCM7. Cheers

[nextbigthing]

Assuming there is only one seller

Correct, given the pattern of selling I'm guessing there's only one. But there could be more.