Member Info for inanaco

ok .. as per my previous post Trinity has taken the "average" of all trials .. ie used the industry norm

you have applied some risk based on What ?

please expand the detail as just picking a number is meaningless ..

"""" So whilst I am not a paid up subscriber to the "No Risk Here" movement, I am a member of the "No risk factor in my formula" club. """"

so you see risk but cannot evaluate it ... ?

is that what you are saying .,...

just trying to be helpful ...

the information paradox .. a black hole is perfect for scancell

Information released is trumped by information not released, so the SP falls even thou that information release date has not expired ..

why respond to the latest when you have not explained the previous

you are all over the place chap

it's a journey ... it takes us 240 million years to orbit our own black hole ..

what's the hurry ...

Time stops inside ...

not sure that would help you crumbs

"a spoonful of sugar" .. would weigh about the same as the entire world production of sugar

"helps the medicine go down"

does not work on remoaners

i just asked you about this statement

"" The only thing “wrong” with the science is your misguided belief that it is the ONLY thing that matters. It isn’t."""

so the point of your last post is Pontification

First pictures of Black Holes ... wow !!

Pharma is a market completely different to any other ...

1/ Trials create transparency of the competition
2/ Sales are 100% Regulated
3/ No short Cuts
4/ Efficacy drives value
5/ market is enormous
6/ Profits are enormous giving some the incentive to chase extremely marginal efficacy which is why many fail.

so the industry has this inbuilt failure mechanism .. even thou they still make enormous profits

that failure mechanism drives posters like Ruck to be able to apply high risk ... not because the science is bad but because the profits are enormous which drives marginal efficacy trials ...

""" so the chances of Scancell succeeding is actually impeded by the enormous profits in the industry which makes trial success low because they chase marginal products """

which is why i keep referring back to Scancells data .. so far its outstanding ..

so this Efficacy data is what lowers risk and by enormous amounts compared to industry Norms ...

The reason why BioNtech is only looking at 3 scancell epitopes is because all the immunogenicity work has been done by Scancell

so if they take on more it means they have to replicate what scancell is already doing ... example scancell is doing all the ground work on Modi2 Homocitrulline

I think Karolinska Institutet is something different another discovery, hence scancell mentioned TCR for this area to.

I have no worries at all about the success of the science, because these CD4 T cells are naturally occurring but very rare

I agree Crumbs ... Ruckrovers post at best send you cross eyed ...

and never actually describes "isn't"

so Pontification Geek .. ?

or sensible poster

will read it crumbs .. but again it just highlights how difficult it is the find antigens ..

and we have a suite of them Moditope

last post refers to ........

The only thing “wrong” with the science is your misguided belief that it is the ONLY thing that matters. It isn’t.

so lets expand on ,,, "it Isnt"

because its ok posting it .. but it's meaningless if you don't explain want Isn't is ...

now you could say "funding" my reply .. not required today ...

move on ...

what is next ?

all you have done is blamed me for a prediction based on clinical outcomes

suggest you read the posts again

and answer as per your own statements and my reading of those statements .. if you pontificate which is the normal response i will just have to accept that you have failed

you could not explain "isn't"

You failed to reply to the post ..

ATB

last post refers to ........

The only thing “wrong” with the science is your misguided belief that it is the ONLY thing that matters. It isn’t.

so lets expand on ,,, "it Isnt"

because its ok posting it .. but it's meaningless if you don't explain want Isn't is ...

now you could say "funding" my reply .. not required today ...

move on ...

what is next ?

if we remove the science from the equation

exactly what are you selling ?

I appreciate you are a genius .. maybe you can solve this dilemma for me

or are you blaming the FDA ? Ichor ? the peptide manufacture of modi1 ? CRUK ? Karolinska Institutet ? BioNtech ? Genentech ? ISA Pharma ? the discovery of homocitrulline ? Glycans platform ?

who is actually got it wrong ?

Keytruda trialing in adjuvant melanoma ?

I tell you why you are wrong, is because you have not followed the market.

you have not even acknowledged in all your posts that Keytruda changed the adjuvant market place !!! for SCIB1

That is the best policy ... which is why i keep asking the same question

Show me what is wrong with the science

they cannot ...

A Specsaver ......... Orof ...

PS I said, it was dangerous to attempt a hostile takeover without BOD support ... i didn't say it was impossible
point being the PHD team would side with Lindy Not Mr Ruck (pfizer)

enjoy your break wild it's a bit of a laugh on here ..