Member Info for Moab

Andy

Why no RNS then?

Carrot

It is difficult to know where to start with this nonsense. It is clear you do not have a background in biology / medicine, and each post reinforces this fact.

You ask "What is your point? Cytologic evaluation is the analysis of cells from the body ***under a microscope*** which is different from a biopsy of a cct.!!!!

Parsortix variably captures CTCs, in this case in metastatic breast cancer. Following this downstream analysis is required. this is generally called cytology or immunology (without the multiple exclamation marks). When this was performed it was found that not all CTCs provided useful information, hence the statement in the RNS:-

"The cytologic evaluation identified CTCs in 48.5% of all evaluable MBC patient samples independent of tumour subtype. CTCs were identified in 33.3% of newly diagnosed MBC patients, and in 56.8% of recurring or progressing MBC patients.

This statement, provided to the FDA cannot be ignored. That is my point.

I am not attempting to denigrate AGL, but I am trying to inject a modicum of objectivity to counter your daily offerings. I hope others will understand this

Carrot

2nd Nov 2022 7:00 am RNS Multiple downstream analysis techniques for CTCs.

Can I help you understand some of the longer words as well?

EC

You could have found this for yourself in the RNS. I will not comment further.

"The cytologic evaluation identified CTCs in 48.5% of all evaluable MBC patient samples independent of tumour subtype. CTCs were identified in 33.3% of newly diagnosed MBC patients, and in 56.8% of recurring or progressing MBC patients."

EC

This is embarrassing. I can see no reference to % of CTCs in this video - given by the master of smoke and mirrors for which you seem to fall. Let me spoon feed you. I have given you the reference to the original work, which you can easily consult. To make it even easier for, see the RNS of 4th Nov 2022, and then read the paper. You will see, amongst other points that the % recovery of CTCs depends on the stage of the disease. At no point is it 100%, or anywhere near it.

FYI I am a realistic LTH. As to whether you trust me or not I could not give a flying f*ck

EC

I was expecting you to do this, given your often repeated and confident statements on the subject. if you care to refresh your memory, you will find that it is far from 100%. This is a valid point, and one which you may consider in future posts. I am not knocking AGL, but trying, fruitlessly so far, to inject some reality into your statements. This was part of Angle’s FDA submission.

Multi-Center Clinical Study to Harvest and Characterize Circulating Tumor Cells from Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Using the Parsortix® PC1 System

Evan N. Cohen 1 , Gitanjali Jayachandran 1 , Richard G. Moore 2 , Massimo Cristofanilli 3 , Julie E. Lang 4 , Joseph D. Khoury et al

Cancers 2022, 14, 5238

If your posts are based on "official RNS's" you can answer the question easily. Just quote the reference. (or I will)

Please do so, as many posters might like to know.

EC

How much are you paid endlessly to repeat your half understood observations on AGL? Do you seriously think anyone now pays the slightest attention to this space wasting rubbish?

A simple question for you : in breast cancer with metastasis, what is the average percentage recovery of CTCs from a single blood sample? Is it 100%, if not what percentage? Please provide evidence.

You sound, as ever, very pleased with yourself.

Fevertree

Thanks

Some sound comments to counter the froth that comes from EC. Sadly, what you write seems to be an accurate summary.

EC

The RNS of 4th Jan was not a breakthrough in any sense of the word, unless it was to take AN's hype to a new level. I cannot be bothered to repeat the reasons why this was not the case.

I expect you will carry on posting > 10 times a day, repeating the same hopeful nonsense. Sadly, i fear, no one pays any attention, but do please continue if it helps you in some sad way.

R13

Reassured to see that they are insured. it is still a distraction. An update on progress is badly needed.

The problem then exists: how do you handle the hydrogen at a site remote from where it is used? Expensive compression etc,.? I prefer the AFC idea of cracking on site where it is used, despite comments here that the cracker is a distraction from AGLs business of making fuel cells. IMHO the AGL cracker is complementary to the AGL fuel cells

This will cost a great deal to defend, money that PHE could better use on the TCC . It will take for ever to reach court, unless an expensive settlement is achieved. Either way PHE is the looser.

-11% on HL board.

EC

Apart from being largely incomprehensible, how does this post add anything to yours of 08.16 today?

Alkin

No, they spent money on directors fees etc,. Remember the awful Yeo, who walked away from the chairmanship with immediate effect and £60K in "consultancy fees".

Did we have a NOMAD previously? If so did they resign?

And even cheaper if the judgement goes against SYM. Do not trust the ECJ after Dysons case.

EC

You loose credibility by banging on in this way. The Jan 4th RNS was an unrefereed paper put together by AGL. No authors names, no journal mentioned. Frankly it was a disgrace, it fooled folk at the time but the falling SP reflects a more considered view.

Have you nothing better to do with your time than spout this incessant froth?

October 6th RNS "In parallel to PHE sourcing an alternative TCC, the preparation of the ancillary processes, safety systems, and civil works that must be completed for the FTU to be installed, will be undertaken by the Company's wholly owned subsidiary Engsolve Ltd and is expected to start immediately. This work will now precede installation of the TCC and this adjustment to the order of steps will help with supporting the schedule should an alternative TCC need to be sourced."

Now coming up to 4 months since the above RNS, and not a word more .

Does it really take that time to source a TCC? How are the ancillary works progressing?

I fear PHE is dead in the water.