Member Info for 13thmonkey

Cleaving is independent of the drug that's attached to it.

It's just a sample size calculation and the error bars that you get based on sample size.

So if, for instance, you took a sample at it suggested that something was happening only 5% of the time you'd need a large sample to be sure that it was real, but if you were seeing something happening 50% of the time then the sample size could be a lot smaller.

It's a counter to the bs of they'd need 1000's to be happy, when the increase in the accuracy you get going from 100 to 1000 is very small. So 100 is fine, in fact 50 is plenty to know it's working.

Any evidence for that Touk, or speaking from your rear end yet again? Statistically there's next to no difference between 100 and 1000, if you determine that 80% are helped then a sample size of:

30 gives you 80% +/- 14%, i.e. it could be as low at 66% or as high as 94%

100 gives you 80% +/- 8% so 72-88%

1000 gives you 80% +/- 2.5% so 77.5-82.5%

Providing it is efficacious then the sample size does not have to be very large to give a very good indication of how good it is. If it is only 10% effective then you start to see reasons to hold:

30 gives you 10% +/-10.74 i.e. it could be as bad a not being at all effective up to 20%

100 gives you 10% +/- 6% so 4-16%

So even at just 100, with a low level of effectiveness you can still be pretty certain about how well it works.

Yeboha, except for about a dozen threads down, where yesterday someone started a thread with that very name.

It may well have use in non-FAPa producing tumours, which are not insignificant, however they'll take a hit because of this, expect dirty tricks.

**** covering for the next ppi-esque scandal, they did their duty, or what could have been considered duty with hindsight and legal pressure.

At some point the risk needle will move from being 'greater than our risk profile for investment' to bring 'greater than our risk profile for our competitors to own it'.

It may wobble around that point for a while, but it'll flip at some point.

The data shared is just data, we've drawn conclusions from them, for the full study they will draw the conclusions that's what they can't do before it's complete.

Do men need vaccination against cervical cancer?

Viking, you asked a long time ago why people thought you were an idiot, this post, and many like them, is why.

1. Yes if there was no cleaving going on then there'd be no MTD found, but the balance of what's leaving the body would show pure 6k and therefore nothing was happening, ethically the safety board would stop the trials.

2. If there was cleaving only at the tumour site you'd get some 6k leaving the body but you'd also get no MTD

3. MTDs will occur when 6k cleaves AND the released dox hits something else that is not the tumour, or 6k itself is found to be toxic, this hasn't happened so 6k isn't toxic and not much pure dox is floating around.

4. They have literally released the figures of how much dox is present in the tumour environment and it's much much more than you'd get with straight dox.

So 1 is not the case, 2,3 and 4 are true based on the figures provided.

Thanks, I could see that it was going to be 'a lot' didn't think quite that much.

Anyone got any idea of the market size, I can see that it's bigger than where we are now that's easy, but what's the TAM?

I wish this had a note function against people, so I could log, 'doesn't understand basic maths, but might be good at the biology ' and such.

Pigster that's 1in 6 that it's a 6 and 5 in 6 that it's not, ie 16% and 84%. Again binary that is a 6 or not a 6 but there are 5 ways/opportunities of getting not a 6.

This is really basic probability.

It is binary but it's not 50:50, they are two different things.

The update is, it's not been found yet.

If one of them bids others will follow, their life will be easier with it than with a competitor having it.

Re the clipping there's a character that LSE doesn't like might be pct can't recall.

Touk, you're right, they should just spike the 6k with some native dox and watch the toxicities arrive then we'd be all done and never know if more could have been applied. Or they could fake the MTD arrival in some other way just to achieve a tick in a box.

For clarity, I've no issue with Investors speculating on potential sales, market sizes etc. How else would we know if where we are now is cheap or not (is very very cheap right now in my opinion)

Touk if you don't trust the management then why are you invested?

Note that for the LFT ALL of the estimates for scale came from investors not management. All management said was that it was accurate and they were going through a process. That process later turned out to be corrupt. They tried to get approval by other channels so were doing the right things.

But if you really believe that it was incompetence then sell, or at least derisk, how can anyone be invested in a company where they don't trust the management.