Member Info for greenshaw

follow this link, avoid the temptation to become outraged at an incompetent decision by the school, and read this speech by a young girl who actually talks about what it is to be british - modern, progressive, culturally diverse, inclusive. now contrast that with the divisive, ****** **** spread by the likes of reform.

bbc news - warwickshire school apologises to girl over culture day speech refusal - bbc news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvj289y788o

great news that 16 and 17 year old will be voting in the next election, no chance for reform now.

I think EE's statements about AI shows that they don't understand it. It's not in any way "locked in the past" or "[unable to] look forward and speculate". That's also not it's main use, at least for me anyway. It may be useful to use AI to speculate on certain forward looking probabilities with complex math but more often it's useful to help understand details that have already been announced that require specialist knowledge to interpret properly. And that's fine, some people won't understand certain things. I'm sure the most informed person among us won't understand many details about Scancell's science.

Just ignore people who try to censor others or restrict what people can and can't post. That's what the filter is for - people have the ability to filter out their own view of the forum. I personally try to expand my perspective and don't filter contrarian opinions.

You're deluded.

Interesting that scientists are using machine learning to find new ways to save people from cancer but if you use it to try and understand that science you're criticised 🤔

Not about Scancell, might be interesting to some here.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2487669-exercise-helps-fight-cancer-and-we-may-finally-know-why/

Quote from article:

But the microbiome makes thousands of metabolites, so the researchers used machine learning to help sift through the candidate molecules and landed on formate. This is a metabolite of bacteria that is increased by exercise and boosts the potency of CD8 T cells in the immune system – which are key to fighting cancer.

Next, the team looked at 19 humans with advanced melanoma. Those with high levels of formate had longer progression-free survival – the length of a plateau when a person lives with cancer but it doesn’t get worse – than those with low levels.

“This research highlights the importance of assessing the metabolites the bacteria are producing, and not just which bacteria,” says Meisel.

Exactly what I've been saying if you were paying attention but I'm not going to stay quiet when people are spouting delusional dangerous ideas. Enjoy the echo chamber.

Paul, I don't think it's worth it. They have decided they want to trash the forum with their nonsense. Look at that last post.. talking about Labour's paymasters while promoting Reform! It would be hilarious if it wasn't actually quite serious. I'll say it again. Reform will increase wealth inequality which is why the economy is so bad. We are where we are because of years of ignoring that problem. No I'm not talking about inequality between people with 1-2 million in net worth and working class people with very little - I'm talking about the wealth inequality between everyone under a few million net worth and the people above that threshold. The Tories historically fought for the middle class and rich people while Labour fought for working class people, but things have changed. Reform and the Tories are financed by very high net worth sources. Labour haven't yet grown the balls to fix the problem. Lets hope they do or Reform and the Tories likely will work together to finish off the middle class and pull us further towards fascism. And they will do it by convincing people who can't think for themselves to be angry about immigrants and anyone else who might qualify as different enough to be ostracized and made into an enemy to focus attention somewhere other than the on the real issues.

As for this forum, I have no interest in posting my thoughts on Vistry, it might help the people dragging us towards fascism and greater inequality make a few quid..

Thank you TF but I may choose to post limited AI content where I've used it to help me understand something but want more eyes to help make sure I haven't made a mistake in my understanding, or feel it may genuinely benefit someone seeking answers. I never bother with free models and it'll always be labelled and in quotes so you can skip past if you don't want to read it or filter me.

The problem with Scinv is he's very unreliable. We know he has a grudge and also may chose to buy back in. So he has an incentive to lower sentiment. He's shown his tendency to acquire grudges, belittle people, be rude, etc. which makes me think he would post to lower sentiment / muddy the waters for his own benefit. Then he's also shown he will misread and misinterpret evidence right in front of him. So I'm not hopeful he'll ever post anything useful and will likely just waste time, despite appearing to have some ability, deep as it may be buried beneath the snark and ego, to one day post something useful.

I counted again and it's 19 checks on the chart, not 20

I don't see how we've learned anything from your insights today scinv, other than a reminder that it's (still) interim data?

Thanks for that really useful and informative contribution EE.. I'll take AI over you announcing precisely how you've adjusted your own blinkers.

So am I right in thinking slide 11 shows 6 events (progression/death) and (I count 20) 20 progression-free checks (worst case patient switches therapy for toxicity, personal choice, or investigator discretion without documented progression)?

the answer is obviously long. abridged ai response:

"

bottom line (bullish): with only ~5 events in the first two years, the vaccine + ipi-nivo combo is exhibiting durable disease control; the heavy censoring is simply the flip-side of durable benefit, not a flaw in the analysis.

bottom line (bearish): with so few events and such heavy censoring, today’s curve may over-state efficacy; once follow-up matures and more real progressions occur, the benefit could shrink toward historical benchmarks.

likely reality

both readings contain truth. the data do look promising—durable disease control with a low event count is what you hope to see in an early cancer-vaccine trial. but the statistical footing is still fragile: the confidence interval around every point on the curve is wide, and the curve can change shape dramatically with each new scan cycle. the next milestones are:

week-25 orr and pfs for the full 43-patient cohort (promised for h1 2025)

updated km curve once ~13–15 events occur, giving the first calculable median pfs

those read-outs will tell us whether today’s bullish story withstands the maturing data—or whether the bearish concerns prove prescient.

"

it also mentions you being wrong previously:

"

everything visible on slide 11 — censor ticks, explanatory caption, step-wise curve, absence of a median — is exactly what one expects from a ******-meier analysis. the critic’s specific allegation that the company “calculated mpfs arithmetically” is therefore almost certainly wrong, even though their broader warnings about small-sample uncertainty and heavy censoring remain valid.

"

it also mentioned this:

"

censor pattern is predictable regular tick spacing matches scheduled imaging visits; that is what you expect when patients remain on study, reinforcing the view that censoring is administrative rather than due to losses or toxicity.

"

scinv, i can assure you that i surrender to truth, i am open to being wrong about just about anything in life. but what i see here is you hastily misjudging my statements and assuming i trade fx when i don't. you (likely) misjudging scancell's analysis of the data (km curve vs arithmetic derived estimate). you having issues with interpersonal skills, ego, and having a grudge against scancell because you perceive that they deceived you intentionally. none of that means you must be wrong about everything but i think the truth is more likely that you just don't know and you're hanging around here to buy back in to the company you have a grudge against (and tell everyone you were right to wait for hard data) or if things go badly, gloat that you knew everyone was wrong (even though you admitted you might buy back in on promising results despite simultaneously claiming you were lied to).

Scinv, just fyi, here's my prompt:

"Someone criticised the attached document with the following message. Can you assess their criticism and explain a case for why they might be wrong, why they might be correct, and which is more likely? Their message:"

(the pdf was attached as a pdf and your message quoted verbatim)

Chelsea, I'm not obsessed with AI, I work with AI and am fully aware of how it excels in sounding plausible (as opposed to being accurate) and have mentioned that all AI responses should come with the caveat that it makes lots of mistakes. I also don't ignore the power of it as a tool. I think it's fine here as long as it's quoted/labelled etc.

sorry to sidetrack, the podcast is very good. and scinv, sorry to you too, i know you would much rather be the one to sidetrack this forum..

on that note, i had ai analyse your assessment of slide 11 and it think's you're wrong (other than the very obvious uncertainty at an early stage with small numbers):

"where the critic is probably wrong

methodology confusion.

they criticise an mpfs calculation, yet the slide does not present mpfs—only the km-estimated probability of remaining progression-free at a fixed landmark (6 months). a landmark estimate is derived from the km curve, so the analyst almost certainly did use ******-meier, not a crude numerator/denominator."

Thanks everyone for thoughts. AI thinks the 10-14 month probate timeline fits.

I disappeared down an AI rabbit hole of possible tax implications in different scenarios and looked for evidence to lean one way or another on this being positive or negative news and have settled on it being neutral, or at least I can't tell. There was a 1m share trade last Thursday and apparently the SI flag on it suggests this could be the correlated broker assisted trade. Here's the last response from AI (o3) when I decided I can't learn anything from this (so I'm taking it as neutral news, although this would result in a lower tax bill in a number of positive scenarios):

"The "ordinary / SI / delayed publication" flags confirm a broker-handled, off-book, large-block trade exactly how a cash-funded or cashless option exercise is routinely executed. But the tape alone cannot tell us whether the ex-employee ultimately held on to the shares or walked away with the cash. You would need the settlement details or the CREST register after 21 July to know for sure."

As I said I'm using AI as I don't have expertise in this area so might be wrong. AI suggests a broker assisted buy world allow them to take that small profit so this might be nothing..

Maybe 5 people * but one of them has more than a 1m block of options (Goodfellow) so less likely to be them

Happy to be proven wrong..

And to answer your question, there seem to be 4 people who could do this. Maybe only one of them knows they need to avoid the tax bill..

Crusty.. they just paid Scancell £81,500 for the 1m shares and simultaneously committed to paying £9k in tax and NI. They can't make money on this if there aren't good results (unless they are gambling they can quickly get a sale in around 9.5-10p for a quick £5k-£10k profit - highly risky given SP has been in that range recently. So they aren't gambling on a quick profit qnd if they weren't certain of good results, it would be far safer to hold onto the options and pay the tax if the results are good.

They know they need to avoid the tax..