Member Info for LimaLiam

Sorry, probably right there. You are a little firey this evening and it seems out of sorts.

I welcome input from all avenues, to look in to and understand for myself of course. Sometimes you get some really good starting point. Also a good guage of other peoples sentiment. Another also as it is a closed group it could be compared to the open groups to differentiate the troll/manipulative stuff from the genuine investors, a good example is that I can't verify for myself if this was actually shared in the reddit chat or not.

I think 0 and 3 are the same as if they are telling an 'untruth' in a BB then it is with the aim of manipulation.

Thanks massive.

So, you meant to type a 0 as that means exactly the same as your 3.

Manifesto are you drunk? Or having a breakdown? This doesn't feel like your normal way of responding... Why are you attacking everyone.

To answer your demand, I am not but wish I was.

So far two 0 (untrue). I understand if no one else wants to take part because of Manifesto's mental health issues, but please do.

If youre all up for it could we vote on the credibility of this post (then maybe leave the arguing behind us).

Reply with just the number selected from below.

0 - Untrue
1 - can happen, but didn't here.
2 - did happen.

Doc, maybe they already had some candidates lined up and advertising the role was red tape?

I'd agree with that Skip.

The scope of the trial is much larger than the usual.

The time is in data retrieval and cleaning, analysis takes very little time. This trial was (necessarily) overcomplicated with regard to number of sites and number of countries, that will be a positive once people are evaluating SNG's work, but it will be making for a huge amount of work right now. Lucky they have the partnership in data management.

I mean, we just have to wait as 'fun' as that is.

Think I agree with ghia on that one.

Yes, I like that theory.

If I was being a pedant could it be that ANY unblinding would sully the 90 day results and so if we run with that theory then they didn't unblind until last week?

Id be happy with patients no knowing, but does that stand up to pier review?

Bring on Monday!

But seriously I did sound like 90%+ of the processing time is collection and cleaning so I think dont read anything like efficacy in to the amount of time it takes.

Fingers crossed we get it this month, stressing about it wont change anything.

Hah, that's a fair point.

It's my opinion they have done a good job so far and I am assuming that they have it in hand. But that is my opinion as you say.

Yeah, lets hope our logic is correct... as long as he doesn't say 'imminently'!

*as someone said before, "march would be Q1 22..."

I spoke to someone who works in the industry (not for SNG) last week. He told me most of the time is spent collecting and cleaning the data before its plugged in to the statistics software.

when I told him the scope of the trial he seemed to think that would be more work than usual.

I think this is the reason for not reporting the data quickly in January and is the most likely explanation for any questions one might have for why it wasn't the worlds quickest turn around.

My guess is it's coming in Feb, SNG are still confident of early 22, so as someone said before march would be Q1 22 not 'early 22'.

Sit back, relax and be patient.

They really are doing a great job.

But we are by no means obliged to sell unless 90% (from the other helpful article someone else posted).

I couldn't see it in the following document while scanning through, but it's worth reading if you havent already and are interested in AIM.

https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/aim-rules-for-companies.pdf

https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/download-code#:~:text=When%20a%20person%20or%20group,as%20the%20level%20at%20which

This states 'at the' 12 month high...

That sounds ****y... sorry.

They are obliged to make an offer of AT LEAST the one year high. We then vote on it (bearing in mind they have 30% of the voting rights), if we vote against then the offer fails and they can not make another offer for a year. I can not remember what percentage forces sale of all share but I think it is very high.

They cannot give preferential treatment to any other holders (dirty dealing) this would be unlawful (possibly illegal).

I believe other entities can make an offer but could be wrong.

I'll find something on LSE that will be factually correct for you now...

Lol, obliged to sell!

No, we would not be forced in to selling. Which only leaves your last sentence (kind of anyway, by protecting theier returns they protect ours).

Woody... I'm not sure they really are.

Ah, sorry. You didn't single me out on re-reading.

Quite the share I agree.

I didn't say that. Please check.