Member Info for Apre

Well . . . I suggested you stop making yourself appear as a whinging beeyatch . . . you've chosen to ignore that advice.

Grow up. Grow a pair. Own your decisions.

Joe, all on LSE will have experienced losses, some huge. You are not unique.

Try to summon a little self-respect and stop posting self-pitying garbage that makes you come across as a whinging beeyatch. And which creates negativity around the BB which the shorters and FUD spammers will feed off. Grow a pair.

Good timing, welcome back.

BEGO on the bagels?

L2analyst . . . I think the blue touch paper is being lit . . . it's just a matter of flash to bang time. (IMO)

moodyrich, thank God you arrived in time . . .

Everyone else . . . mystery solved . . . and . . . relax.

Have a wild guess.

Deleted posts . . . all in the best possible taste! Surely . . .

I am just back from a 24 hour suspension after the shennanigins of yesterday morning. Strangely, other posters apparently not receiving the same treatment . . . despite their track record.

Some folks better connected than others . . .? No, . . . say it aint so. Or working in groups to remove threads and "cancel" others? Heaven forbid!

(New thread so that the other, on the same subject, remains when this one goes).

So do I go from supension to ban now . . . oooooh.

I rest my case . . .

I am still here, going nowhere.

When this BB is at its best there is no other to match it. When it is at less than its best, that is temporary and in fact, not at all as bad as most other BBs I visit, which appear to be exclusively populated by halfwits and fantasists. Some of the research that has been very generously sleuthed and shared on here is top notch. I cannot believe anywhere else is better, even Telegram, which I have never visited. (Corret me if I am wrong . . . but with proof.)

This BB is like every other form of free social media. It can be abused and abusive. So what. We are all adults. Stay or go. But posters asserting that certain other posters should not post certain other things is pointless and egotistical. No one has the right to say who should post what and when. And everyone has the right to post superb, valuable reseach or to make it clear from what they post that they are an effwitted clown. Jeez, its just a free BB.

If you want Oxford Union style debate (excellent, incidently, in its own context) and "Queensbury rules" then then you are in the wrong place.

So Doggy, what is your target price and how do you justify it?

Tom, you are being a bit saucy there mate. Put a lid on it, its starting to jar . . .

It may not be "new news" (No exclamation mark) but to some of us non-scientists it is still a pretty impressive reassurance of what we are dealing with. And I, for one, am happy to be reminded, in such stark terms.

BTW Ophidian, I have frequently been an admirer of your posts but I have to say, sometimes you need to apply a little humility. You are excellent in your field. But I would wager that in my field you would flounder . . . horses for courses, as they say. But I would resist the temptation to make you appear foolish.

That said, "This is not new news !" followed by, ". . . it's now pretty old news" . . . tautology?

Thanks Richob. Absolutley staggering numbers.

Even the most fervent believers in AVA6K will need to take a breath to digest, "In vitro cytotoxicity assessments involving human tumor cell lines showed that AVA6000 was between 80-fold to 4,000-fold less cytotoxic compared to doxorubicin."

"Disruptive" does not begin to descrbe what could be happening here.

Okehurst1, exactly. I keep reminding myself to keep my feet on the ground when I reading the big numbers being bandied around . . . I hope they are true (£200 ex-China for example). But the human side of this story is also immense. I, like many here, have lost loved ones to cancer. In the future, who knows, imagine, there may be fewer people saying that. That is mind-boggling too.

Hello Mr Ponity,

Welcome to the BB.

I am responding to your posts but on a different thread because I personally prefer not to use the word "delay" in this context and I think such headings give a negative connotation.

I am not having a go but in many of the discussions we have had on this BB the word delay has been used as a tool to shift the narrative to a negative one, when in fact, IMO, we should regard all timelines as flexible and manage our expectations accordingly. As has been said, the Clinicians are managing this trial and it will take as long as it takes. It cannott be described as "early" nor can it be described as "delayed". It will get here when it gets here.

As for your idea that the release might be being managed, I agree that is quite possible. I have thought it over and (speaking as an obvious non-scientist and certainly only in my opinion) my view is that if this trial pans out as we believe/hope it will, then the news will be immense.

The news will go way beyond a mere RNS. There will have to be announcements, journal articles perhaps, peer to peer communication etc making clear just what an earth moving change has accured. Oncologists the world over will want to know about it and the RNS alone will not suffice. This will have to be prepared and managed.

Then there are, as you point out, the possible Big Pharma players in the data room. I suspect that the timing of any data release is more likely to be influenced by them than by the impatient demands of some PIs. The financial impact will be huge and will be stage-managed. They will not be rushed.

Then there is the mainstream media. If and when this becomes news, I would expect the reaction in the Press will be sensational, in every sense. So press releases etc will need to be managed and well-timed too.

Of course, I may be wrong . . . but I genuinely feel that if this goes as we hope, then "disruptive" will not siffice to describe what is happening to Oncology and the treatment of future cancer sufferers.

None of this is going to force Avactas hand. I agree with you, AS is a master strategist and he will manage the release of results to maximum benefit . . . his, Avacta`s, Oncology`s and ours. I am prepared to wait however long it takes for that.

Good luck (to all of us)

Fine, I can read the definition you give. It depends on the context as to whether one uses tolerable or tolerated. I am basing my comment on what I recall AS included in one of the presentations.

Frankly, chucking out random definitions trawled from a Google search is a bit pointless. What matters is what the speaker intended, in the context in which he/she was speaking (or writing).

One day Eggy you may learn not to be quite so precious.

As I recall, in MTD, the T is for Tolerable, not Tolerated. I am not being pedantic . . . there is an important difference.

seethree . . . you started off complaining about "silly little fights" and now you say, " . . . does not preclude them from posting silliness occasionally, nor does it preclude them from being called out on it."

So you reserve the right to start silly little fights yourself?

I was serious about that mirror.

Both Nicolas and seethreeIPO use the word "silly" to criticise others. Ironic?

FWIW Beinthlead is a rational, smart, well-researched and respected poster. Suggesting silliness on hispart merely shows up how small-minded and self-interested you are. Get yourself a mirror and hold it up before your next post.