Member Info for AB124

Maybe it's a sell order being worked against an large number of shares available should they be needed.
IIs who want to divest can be supported in many ways, and one of those is to keep switching size and price by MMs. I very much doubt they have no idea what's going on.
Looks to me like the Market's been very well handled over the last few weeks.
Does anyone disagree with that?
I can only assume that thjose that might are wanting the SP to be higher now rather than awaiting news?
I'm quite happy for it to be allowed to rise in an orderly manner.
AIMO

What do we want for Scancell?
It's great for traders if we have 3 point rises one day with 2 point falls the next but what does that say about the company?
I ventured (some time ago now) that Scancell has become an Investment - upgraded from a small speculative Baby Bio.
We have multi trials running with at least one (so far) where there has been a spectacular indication of possible success.
That however isn't the way Pharma look at results. they want to have Data sheets which provide properly presented information that is published by the Company, They do not take information leaked from investors in the trialling Company.
There is a set way that these Trials are conducted and they must be adhered to. There's very good reasons for that as I'm sure everyone understands.
So why would we want the SP to swing wildly?
I'm not sure we do.
There's plenty of interested parties in our investor base (and I'm not referring to those who hold a few million shares) but those who have industrial quantities of shares and who would like to see a sensible and orderly market and even in their normal course of business there will be reasons why they will need to redistribute shares from time to time. The more of this that goes on the better for the Company and ultimately LTHs.
So overall it seems that we should sit back, and wait for the "Official" results to start to flow. I'm sure that when they do the SP will respond, but please, don't expect every time there's a good bit of Non RNS info surfacing that the world's going to buy the shares and force a multi point rise. There's some around who might want Scancell to be an investment (SP wise) rather than a speculative trading toy. Those people may just have the clout to make it happen too, and they'll simply squash even larger PIs underfoot, Those with the largest holdings call the shots, and that includes nobody from this BB.
The SP goes where the biggest holders decide, so probably best not to try and outguess those who know and have the wherewithall to decide what happens next.
I like Investments like Scancell. Quiet (but hopefully) steady capital appreciation.
AIMO

Wildforce,
AT LAST ,
What a good idea!

WigWammer,
Would you accept "acknowledged" rather than confirmed?
Seems a reasonable compromise?

Couldn't agree more.
Thought I was filtered, but seemingly not.

Hi C7
Thought I'd repost yours which prompted me to start that new thread last week.
I see ELEVEN have removed their support (only 13 remaining now) , so that's quite interesting in its own right.
I thought you should be aware of the "Reccs" that have been removed. Wonder why? They obviously wanted to dissociate themselves from your strange outburst.
Anyway, for anyone who missed it here it is again. (maybe the "Reccs" will get over 30 this time). In some respects I hope they do because they are obviously very important to you.
BTW I've not bothered to question the many inaccuracies in your post below. Why, life's simply too darned short. Enjoy your evening C7.

CHELSEA7

Posts: 45,399

Price: 22.75

No Opinion

RE: Patient 1Sun 11:03
What I find disturbing is the late post last night, typically despatched around midnight by our old friend Aimbig, the very same person who wished me dead on the ADVFN BB whilst I was fighting lung cancer.

Talk about taking the moral high ground...yet again!!!

The question of authenticity was first raised by me on the day the patients posts were posted here. I asked....politely what we would have said if it was negative news?? Nobody replied at all, we then got reports from the AGM . I cannot think of one post that crossed the line all week, let alone yesterday............so why your rudeness Aimbig in making accusations against any poster here.

I think someone posted earlier that only a sick mind could even conjure that up, well that profile fits.

ReplyRecommend (13)

Wild,
Just my understanding, doesn't mean I'm right.
Good to have an expert like Burble on hand to clarify.
Anyway, let's hope everything progresses as we all hope.
ATB

Wild in other words if safety were compromised, of course it would, but that would happen whoever the problem arose with.
But any change relating to the individual's failure to progress or even a small setback would not require an RNS (subject to no further associated "leaks".
That's my point, the chances of any requirement for an RNS in the case of the trial in progress would only be triggered by a substantial problem, not the failure of one participant to progress.
AIMO

Wild,
I'm not sure whether any adverse result for one patient would require reporting via RNS. Such a course of action would go against the protocol of anonymity (unless it was a fundamental generic issue which would then affect the entire trial).
The only reason for people suggesting RNS were required was because of an unfortunate "Leak" of one individual's first result.
So to me, if further "leaks" of an individual's results can be prevented then unless there were any fundamental problems we can hope for no further news until Scancell deem publication is appropriate.
A (purely)IMO
Perhaps Burble could comment.

Burble
The suggestion seems to be that an individual set of results being revealed before all have been assessed is not desirable or even ethical.
Quite apart from (what seems to me) to be a potential situation which could compromise the Trial in some way, would it not be unreasonable for the Company to ask for no discussion on a public forum. Would that be beyond reasonable?
I simply cannot understand why anyone would think that in any way wrong.
TBH if anyone did take financial advantage it's surely no worse than what's happened on this BB in the last four weeks or so?
If you'd prefer not to respond to this question I'd completely understand.
AIMO

Surely if a trial requires the data to be collected, collated and then published as a set of all results from all Trial participants are we suggesting that the Company should simply publish an individual's results anyway?
The "problem" seems to be that it is being shared when maybe it is shared too widely?
I would have thought that everyone should accept that we have to wait, which, if that is the case as with every other trial, why are we expecting to see it before due time? I can't believe that Scancell are thinking of doing such a thing, and if they are what reason (and more importantly what part of the protocol would allow for it?
This is a genuine question, and in no way is critical of anything, anyone or any already stated views, but why is Scancell's trial so different from all others in terms of data release.
I'm not being insensitive to anyone's desire to share their successful treatment with others but it seems odd that this should be happening to this trial in seeming isolation.
I Know very little about how trials should protect their early data. Maybe someone who does know could comment on what normally happens?

Hasiba,
Damn!! LOL

The principle proves what the error was though.
I think that's a very useful part of a BB.
Pooled information providing the answer.
Seems good to me.
AND thanks GF for not filtering me.
ATB

RR Brilliant, I don't have that sort of history handy... Thanks for the info.

Stock split 25 July 2011 RR.
Sorry it was in my first quote from Scancell history.
Think it's all explained now.

GF
The stock split was done at around 65p and the SP had been higher than that I'm sure.
(If I'm filtered by GF could you pass the info on to GF.
I certainly remember people saying that the SP fell off a cliff in 2011 (that was still going on four or five years after the event...
Anyway, in case I'm filtered by GF123 please help him ou Wild.
Thanks

RR the share split is the high that Hasiba saw...
Can't be *rsed to look up the exact date but it was in 2011,

"Scancell Holdings plc (“Scancell” or the “Company” or the “Group”), the developer of
therapeutic cancer and infectious disease vaccines based on its patented Immunobody®
platform, is pleased to announce the interim results for the six month period ended 31st October
2011.
Highlights:
• Sub-division of share capital and Placing to raise £1.73 million;"
it took place between april and October 2011... that's close enough for me (and I'm sure you too).

But as you say he only posts facts.
Since I'm filtered by him feel free to quote my quote from the Scancell report for 2011.
What a fraud....
AIMO

Wildforce stock split in Y/e 2011
"On 25th July 2011 the shareholders of the Company approved resolutions for:
• The proposed subdivision of each Existing Ordinary Share of 1p into 10 new Ordinary
Shares of 0.1p each; and
• A placing to raise £1.73 million, before costs, by means of the issue of 34,575,410 new
Ordinary Shares at 5 pence per share to fund the working capital of the Company."
That's where Hasiba got it....
Pretty certain the high before the split was 75p.
Its an old chestnut and Hasiba fell dfor it.
Sad really.

GF Think it has, intraday Oct 2012
I think the SP was actually 64.75 or something...