Member Info for BOJO2020

19.25 to sell on ii

Well on this point. SCLP will need £25 to £30m for registration trial? The only point I found of interest in @chilltime post was that Scancell have likely directed a significant investor to the open market. Which to me would indicate that they are not looking to raise funds. Now you would only do that if there was a cast iron guarantee that the trial money is ready or will be there.

According to interactive fair value for SCLP is 34.11 pence so somewhere in the region of half price!

The more you offer to sell the more they offer and cannot even buy £500 for last 20 mins or so

Markets on Aug holiday shutdown? Reporting could be described as laggy at best

NT to sell over 500 shares all morning for SCLP. Buying is easy and cheap! The MM are being naughty IMO

EE,

Love the enthusiasm as always but your 21:02 yesterday. The context of the quote you posted was relevant to Moditope/Modify. Not SCIB/Scope ( about which this thread is concerned). We should be very clear in not jumbling everything together...

That does each trial an injustice as they are standing very well up separately.

*my previous

Moab,

I refer you to mr previous reply’s. Good luck finding your answer but I think you are off on an irrelevant tangent.

ATB

Also you said in your 17:45

" No, I am presuming nothing of the sort: they can come from the primary that is shedding cells. It is not possible to determine where the CTC comes from, to my knowledge. Please correct me with evidence if there is any.

Your words say that CTC's can come from the primary tumor and the next sentence says it is not possible to determine where the CTC comes from.

I don't think I can help you with this contradiction. If you maybe started by making your own mind up which of these opposites you believe to be correct, it would be a good place start re-calibrate your understanding.

Moab,

Parsortix is only presenting cells for subsequent analyses, yet you appear to be arguing that either it isn't at all or that it is not very good at it? That is a bit like blaming the patient for having the wrong illness; because you do not have the appropriate means to evaluate the subject accurately. This brings me to my point, current ctDNA testing regime's and subsequent analysis are not appropriate for CTC's. Science needs to catch up.

My advice on the scientific papers. Accept your limitations, after all we cannot be experts on all cancer types and understand all the nuances. Simply take as much information to help yourself evaluate your investment.

Note: I am not a scientist or a physician of any kind. In fact I don't think it would help in any case as it could come with bias.

ATB

Moab,

1)

It is currently understood (please see 94 peer reviewed articles) that primary tumors shed tumor cells. These cells ( which are whole intact living tumor cells that "if" captured can be presented for downstream analysis. Thus providing Protein, DNA & RNA samples that are equal to tissue biopsy) circulate in the blood stream. Hence they are called Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC's).

The blood stream is an inhospitable environment for these CTC's, as such in most cases they are destroyed before they are able to seed at secondary sites in the body.

2)

In such a case that the CTC's are able survive and seed at a secondary site then these secondary (or metastatic) tumors shed CTC's and these circulate within the inhospitable enviroment that is the blood stream etc etc.

3)

Should a cancer change or evolve (for example to avoid a Tcell response), then the CTC's that it sheds can be captured in the same way. Allowing for a comparison to be made to the primary or secondary tumor (evolution).

So, Parsortix is totally is a reliable means of capturing CTC's from the blood stream whether that be from case 1 or 2 or even 3. Note but If the blood stream has already destroyed the CTC's then clearly there isn't any remaining CTC's that can be captured. However, if there are CTC's yet to have been destroyed then Parsortix captures some which can be presented for downstream analysis.

I see your point but you are presuming that CTC's only come from the metstatsic sites? This is not the case, CTC's are present before and after a secondary tumor appears. So tumors shed CTC's and Parsortix captures them. My Point is there is a lack of complimentary analysis but that is and will change over time. Angle are having to do all the leg work of producing reliable kits, test, reagents etc to prove the purpose.

Parsortix works. It is the downstream analysis that needs to measure up! Just my opinion but the current NGS are not good enough presently. So Angle are working on carving out an overhaul with one of these NGS companies. Maybe Illumina?

You know, cars and trucks have replaced horse and carts and barges!

GG123,

Yes agree with your first paragraph. Also will it ever get there. But then that THE true question of all AIM companies.

My thoughts are that Parsortix WILL get there but the actual question is, will it be Angle/AN/IG that get it there. To be even more precise, is this (Angle) the vehicle that will get it there. The only concern one should ever have is that as a stake holders is, are we holding a stake in the vehicle that gets it (the asset) there. The same is true of Greatland Gold etc. The asset or the "it" is undeniable, but as they say, the Gold in the ground is going nowhere but can the Company - Greatland Gold stand the pressure and heat of commercialising the asset and at what cost - particularly to share holders.

FWIW I disagree with Fevertree man and Co entirely. AN and IG are giving Angle every chance and managing the asset and business carefully. However as Bermuda shorts says, "this is a revolutionary tech and it will not be easy to change the current thinking from ctDNA (for which there is a large market) to CTC's for which there is a virgin market with little revenue apparent right now.

Back to my own conculsions: Interesting that Angle are struggling to find an NGS system that is reliable and repeatable, Thermo fisher is particularly inconsistent apparently... So Illumina looks our best bet?

ATB

Any significance to discussing results at ASCO for this amount of time? Are standard amounts of time allotted. In any case this underlines to me significant interest

I remember when visiting a supplier, the boss asked me for a share tip. I mentioned SCLP but said just get a small tranche as I didn't want the grief or hassle. I presumed he'd sat down at his PC to get on with some work but after about 10 minutes he called out in expletive language for his PA for help as his investing platform was playing silly beggars again (or words to the effect). It turned out that he had made the transaction six times in error... The bad news was that the share priced dropped considerably for some reason or another almost immediately. Something he reminded me of every time I saw him for months. The good news is that he is the kind of fella to leave them in a bottom drawer. Not seen him in yonks but hope he still has them!

Hi Bermuda,

My point being at the outset nobody knew how iScib1+ would be tolerated. Would it be too powerful etc. So it is a good sign that it is being rolled out at at these study centres.

So does this mean that iSCIB1+ is up and running in all centres. If so then that would mean no initial adverse events. Although clearly going forward this will be monitored. Significant

Are there any AIM stocks that don't have a funding gap...

TGTD,

Day Trader = Holds a stock for minutes, hours, or maybe days. Unless they get trapped in which case they will chew their own arm off to get away (sell at a loss and move on). Usually on a swing trade basis or momentum. No real knowledge of the investment is essential.

An investor = Makes money from an investment. The period over which they hold is entirely optional, but taking profit is a high priority. It is highly likely that an investor understands the proposition extremely well and dips in and out of the investment capitalising on share price movement.

Long Term Holder = Prepared to hold over the long term even if that means they leave profits (regardless of size £££) on the table as they believe there is more value to be realised at a future point (usually undetermined) in time. This is very high risk as by not taking profits, errors judging future value or market conditions change can lead to severe losses.

Just my opinion and of course one should do their own research. In any case, I think it is unlikely EC is a day trader.

ATB

Assuming that the deal goes through. Anyway, nice win win $1m due very soon which is heading for a years turnover for most AIM peers.