We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
what ever ... ie ... explained the meaning ....
your now trying to create another meaning which i never posted ...
Fake news ...
BB disruptive
Inan,
You posted...…
QUOTE...………………….
which backs up what i said
"... makes no difference to scancell because we have the fall back plan "scientifically approved" ie CRUK and Scancells scientist have successfully adopted the Nanoparticle. delivery system."
END QUOTE
My point was it DOESN'T back up what you said!!!!!
It is NOT "scientifically proven" (yet)
Just reposting your erroneous claptrap will not make it true!
Also, when you say
"makes no difference to scancell"
I'm afraid it does and will continue to do so. You have to think it through (or read what people are saying on ADVFN if you are unable to think it through yourself.
The original plan was to conduct a combination trial (SCIB1 and KEYTRUDA) across multiple locations based in the USA and the UK, administered by Ichor's Tri-Grid2 system. The USA arm would be overseen by Keith Flaherty, a well known and eminent oncologist in the USA and internationally. (Also associated with Sloane Kettering a much respected organisation)
The publicity in the USA may have opened the way to US finance, who knows?
Let's hope that TG2 does get FDA approval at some point and the IND can be resubmitted and an equivalent US trail can commence. This will inevitably incur a lengthy delay. So to say "this makes no difference to Scancell" is I'm afraid completely untrue and very misleading.
so simple question for you .......... Ruck has CRUK and Scancell adopted the Nano delivery system ... after 12 months of testing etc. ?????
oh dear ....
nanoparticle has so far passed pre-clinical testing ... so its "expected" to deliver ... as the trial has not started you have to use the word "expected" Ruck
which backs up what i said
"... makes no difference to scancell because we have the fall back plan "scientifically approved" ie CRUK and Scancells scientist have successfully adopted the Nanoparticle. delivery system."
not sure what your arguing about .................. Your "fake news" that """you""" generated ? or what
Inan,
"funny how i explained what "scientifically approved " .... then you change the meaning because you want to disrupt the BB"
Well, you have to ask, does correcting erroneous statements and presenting the facts "disrupt the BB" or merely disrupt someone's private agenda?
So allow me to present the facts, the unadulterated truth. From the RNS 20th May 2019:
"We are delighted to announce this important milestone in our partnership with Cancer Research UK, which moves us one step closer to entering the clinic. This new nanoparticle approach to deliver SCIB2 is expected to achieve results that are as effective as, or even better than, electroporation. We believe SCIB2 has the potential to provide a much-needed treatment option for patients suffering from a range of common solid tumours including NSCLC, the most frequent cause of cancer death globally."
Perhaps you overlooked the significance of
"This new nanoparticle approach to deliver SCIB2 is EXPECTED to achieve results that are as effective as, or even better than, electroporation."
I have capitalised "EXPECTED" for clarity.
I have also searched the entire RNS and neither the word "scientifically" nor "proven" appear at all let alone together.
So I repeat, your claptrap does not help anyone. I'm sure there are plenty of factual points that can be made to provide some optimism.
I will go further its scancell and CRUK have achieved in nanoparticle the same or better "immune response" over Ichor otherwise they would have used Ichor
Do you have any information that would change that statement ? No you dont because its all in house with CRUK .., and you know better !!! Mr Ruck
funny how i explained what "scientifically approved " .... then you change the meaning because you want to disrupt the BB
Inan,
It really isn't helpful to anyone that you are continuing to post your claptrap....
"... makes no difference to scancell because we have the fall back plan "scientifically approved" ie CRUK and Scancells scientist have successfully adopted the Nanoparticle. delivery system."
There is absolutely NOTHING "scientifically approved" YET!
There are PLANS to use nanoparticle at the instigation of CRUK. As yet, we do not know if this has started and we are years away from being able to say "scientifically PROVEN", this is what the trial is for.
"I will stress this is a "device specific " issue "
So what? It has a direct impact on Scancell.
"This is not a Scancell issue"
It most patently IS!
The issue was known and its not that difficult to understand is it Ruck ............ it was a Device issue ... not a Vaccine issue
we knew about the problem from RNS .. so why even post that ?
TF,
"I wonder what Martin Dibble our Non-Exec will have to say and what his attitude is ? "
I'm sure M Diggle was fully briefed on the reality of the situation BEFORE he invested the £3.9M and accepted a place on the board.
The US has effectively shut a US company ... makes no difference to scancell because we have the fall back plan "scientifically approved" ie CRUK and Scancells scientist have successfully adopted the Nanoparticle. delivery system.
so we run the phase 2 SCIB1 in the UK, open multiple trial centers and get the data ...that gives Ichor 2 years min to sort out the FDA because that is critical for them, meanwhile at least 2 trials Janseen and Scancell will continue to provide data on the Ichor gun in support of a future IND in the US. I will stress this is a "device specific " issue
"""Whilst there has been extensive dialogue between Ichor and the Agency, a timely resolution to the device-specific questions has yet to be agreed."""
which is what i mentioned in my posts the other day ...
so the delay is over ... data on Keytruda SCIB1 ... will start to feed through soon .. its the data that is important not the location of the trial centers, we gained a bit of Prestige in the US with the US leading the trials .. and IMHO that has not changed as they still are prepared to lead the trials. This is not a Scancell issue
Dalester - I have special powers - just gave you 4 recs somehow ! Good to read your positive view.
Elsewhere some Posters are extremely disappointed that we were not told that the FDA was on the 'critical path' for the UK SCIB1 Combo trial - may be BoD had particular reasons but IMO too, it looks bad. Very bad.
However it IS good that we are out of limbo and the UK trial can progress and save lives and give Scancell some great data we hope. BoD have been forced to tell us now because the Annual Report has to comment on prospects.
I wonder what Martin Dibble our Non-Exec will have to say and what his attitude is ? Whatever the wider issues, I'm glad BoD took a maybe belated decision and let's hope the trial can now proceed - asap.