Member Info for Ivyspivey

Afternoon Ratty,
Fair enough .Krafty asked a question and I responded.I asked you and WW ( who obviously has a serious issue with TD) and you have not responded.People can draw whatever conclusions they want to and our expectations may be more similar than what you think but it suits your personal narrative to try and paint others as having a negative view which as Bermuda asked you both to clarify but again no response was given.
I draw a clear distinction between saying some poster used to be a nurse/ businessman/banker which you deem personal etc than your good friend who chooses to highlight info that clearly identifies me specifically.
As you know I make little attempt to hide my identity and that means you can readily check what I factually post. Contrast that with you and your friend on the other side who seek a non de plume status and seek to hide behind an anonymous personna so that you can bang away in best keyboard warrior style.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing at all as surely that is what a balanced board is about.
So OK Ratty and WW what are your current valuations of SCLP based on current DTH response?
Then we can have a balanced discussion based on “ expectations ” so that the neutrals can get a much better idea on what we think SCLP is worth and then everyone can decide whose perspective is more likely.
ATB

Hi Krafty,
With the obvious caveats about it depends on the nature of the solid news so confirmation of more partial and/ or full tumour regression in a significant proportion of patients will lead to a much higher SP target than just a real demonstration of stable disease which in itself is extremely positive.
Plus the general not a great idea to predict SPs by me or anyone else but you did ask so I will give you my thoughts but as always personal view only.
I would say within a range of 40-60p in terms of just very good results not stellar ( that would mean imo 75-100p)
However that is without any deal and the Modify trial is pivotal but not only in validating Modi 1 but in predicting the future.in terms I of the future potential here.
I look upon a successful trial as very likely to drive a great commercial deal and tbat us where the big bucks imo will be made.
The risks are of course that a deal may or may not come as we all remember the compelling SCIB1 results plus of course we know there could be a capital raise in next 6-9 months so that will potentially effect SP depending on timing and of course whether SCLP can finance moving forward with another Glycan deal which will remove this particular threat.
Anyway only my musings and more than happy to be wrong

Morning Bermuda,
As you say I don’t see anyone trying to talk it down and if you took the trouble to read the posts they are overwhelmingly positive and are not reflective of the current SP.
The only variance is the level of expectation with some of us preferring to wait until solid news is released by SCLP in an RNS which we do expect and others who judge the SP should in multiples of where it is now based on current dara

Very much agree WF and that is why I recommended Rays post as it highlighted your point of the universal DTH response being a great start in the race towards being a very successful trial.
I was just trying to countenance the view that some seemed to be pursuing that the presence of DTH meant the gold medals were already decided lol

Evening WF,
My understanding is that you can measure DTHs and agree that LD is the perfect judge of their significance and to include it is very positive.
To try and clarify my thoughts I would add two points.
1As we were not given specific data it is hard to draw too many wider conclusions about how they will translate into into CMR.
2. They are reflective of a very early stage in the journey rather than the end of the journey so for eg the primary clinical endpoint.
When I discuss CMR I deal with proven responses so truly measurable and the only times I discuss anything related to cellular responses like DTHs is in a different context so not looking at cellular immune responses in a positive way but more soft tissue damage so very much in a negative way usually as a result of certain adjuvants.
So as I say the inclusion of DTH info in the RNS is very positive but there is a long way to go to achieve “ proof” if that makes sense.

Nice balanced post Ray.
As you say the DTH though very encouraging is not a true measure of a CMR but merely a step along the journey.As WW has said the CMR response will be measured much more accurately as a primary end point I recall 12 weeks after final treatment.
The 2ndary endpoints do contain symptomatic/ clinical endpoints and I suspect it is these that will determine the SP here within a much quicker timeline.

Agree Bermuda,
TD get their info directly from SCLP so to me there is some really useful data regarding expectations from within the Company itself if you prepared to look for it. Any report is only reflective of a moment in time but comparing it to previous reports helps you get a much better understanding of direction and speed of travel.

Hi Ruck,
We can all agree that a positive DTH will likely increase the chance of success and hence “ valuation”.
However all brokers like TD as Bermuda has highlighted use standard industry criteria which are objective and in fact they raised the target price based in the last update.
What they won’t do is raise a target price based on subjective assessments so it is pretty obvious why their may be some discrepancy between their current target price and done SH expectations.
Better imo to remain patient and wait for those “ expectations be realised rather than blame the broker for getting it wrong.

ANTHONY that is what I am smoking Ratty absolutely brilliant

Evening Ratty well good detective work was never a forte of yours was it.
You must be deluded to think that the poster that you and WW worship wins any credibility battles and the only reason that balanced people don’t post much is the negativity that always follows any pointless discussion.
I understand the frustration you are feeling and the pressure you are under and feel sorry for the genuine guys here but as many here are recognising when you dismiss any balanced discussion just because it does not fit your narrative then you have only yourself to blame.

Ratty I did not comment as I did not want to start an argument but you keep,on insisting on inviting me to clarify so thanks for the opportunity.
I was not referring to LSE at all but at POG or POS thread on the other site.If you took the time and trouble to look at the discussion at the time this will be evident.
WW appreciate you will be very frustrated with todays SP action but please just you do your thing and I will do mine as really none if your business.

Evening and very surprised to see the drop here today.
Although the RNS may not have lived up to some folks heightened expectations like AB I was more circumspect regarding expecting dramatic news and thought the news was very positive and well within context so again not surprised about yesterdays drop but todays continuation does seem to suggest something else behind it.
Unlike WW I don’t consider it is forward selling of any planned raise which to me is still likely to be Q3 at the earliest unless some third party has expressed an interest in investing and they are taking advantage of that opportunity.
I think more likely it is Ichor or Calculus or that ilk but fascinating times and any thoughts appreciated

Evening thedean
Yep they did a HC here in p2 and an interim analysis in p3 expedited trial much quicker.Judt in time as FDA is looking at RSV Vax for over 69s

https://www.trinitydelta.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/SCLP-Update-230221.pdf

Target 36.7p

https://t.co/mZuSJRY5Vy

Morning yes very good news re stabilising the patients and no safety issues at all.Really feel RNS sets the correct tone and well done all involved.

Yep great news Toatie and so pleased for you and hope the tablets( presume an ACE inhibitor or vasodilator ) will do the trick mate.

Morning EE,
There is value in releasing papers which give out more detail but more important imo to have it appear in a peer reviewed article and that does lengthen the timeline somewhat.

Afternoon,
No more comments on SCLP results but this paper demonstrates they certainly have the correct approach.

https://t.co/9caBl3g2xA