Member Info for moonparty

Let's hope the cat is on a course of action 😊

And funding options are many as discussed at the AGM. This is a biotech not a blue chip.

If you can't take the uncertainty, best sell out, and put your cash in the bank.

Nonsense, look at the trades - it's nervous PIs selling out.

Very short sighted IMO, just look at yesterday's release - there is nothing out there to compete with those numbers.

Just re-watched the Lindy video, in particular the bit around the ORR at 72%. The reduction from 84% was due to a few patients progressing before 13 weeks. Thoughts on this:

- In this case, CPIs are also ineffective, and these patients should have been screened out.

- Lindy was very confident throughout - IMO, she has knowledge of the scans prior to the 25 week scan and knows that the eventual ORR will be > 70%, as enough patients are showing shrinkage post 13 weeks.

A couple of other thoughts:

- iScib1+ - “we still have a lot of enthusiasm that it's as good if not better then Scib1”. Again, IMO, she has knowledge of the scans prior to 25 weekso and knows it's working well.

- Scancell do seem to be only reporting 25 week data now, Suspect the early readout last year was just to garner interest for the placing.

Lindy proactive interview here for those who missed it:

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1060861/scancell-cso-professor-lindy-durrant-hails-positive-melanoma-data-1060861.html

Just ignore for a minute the calculus selling, the constant chatter about funding and day-to-day bluster of egos on these boards. Take a step back and look at today's results:

The.Scince.Works.

72% (18 of 25) have had tumour shrinkage > 30%. And 5 of those have had a complete response! That is a fantastic result for those patients and a monumental achievement for Scancell.

Nothing comes near this efficacy in any comparable clinical trials - think about that! Pharma execs whose companies operate in this space have no option but to take notice and position themselves accordingly.

Classic 'sell on news', may be a better reaction once the news sinks in and is properly digested.

Also, this is not an actual 'baggable' endpoint, as only 25 patients, just an interim update to coincide with new CEO (I imagine), so more news to come on this - I'll leave the experts to predict when based on scans etc..

"with many patients continuing to show tumour shrinkage over time" - so numbers will most likely improve on the reported 25 patients.

IMO, once the dust settles, and people do the maths, buying will resume - this news de-risks further the investment case.

What we are seeing to day is nervous holders and traders selling on news. People and/or funds who are accumulating will wait a day or 2.

I think our buyer (or buyers, or a new buyer) are back - you can sell up to 200K at 15.45 currently.

Bodes well for more blue this afternoon.

Not sure about AIM as a whole, but I think Scancell would be better off an the Nasdaq - it seems much closer to a meritocracy when it comes to company valuations than AIM.

FOMO in play?

Guessing hat would be the eventual (i.e. post-patent) cost. So during IP lifetime, if Scancell charge £100k, profit is £98.5k

404 shares traded so far today!

Lets see how many of you are saddos like me and understand the reference :)

Who went down the pub Friday afternoon and left the junior in charge? 😁

Shall we all move on from this Tempest. Hopefully in a couple of months we will be able to look back and say "All's Well That Ends Well"

OK RR, as we still seem to be on this, here are just a few of the reasons the MF article is not worth the virtual paper it is written on:

"Scancell has no revenue stream"

WRONG - $5M up-front plus milestone payments from Genmab up to (from memory) $400M odd.

"What does this mean for investors? Most likely, shareholders can expect a lot of equity dilution moving forward as Scancell looks to raise capital."

WRONG - a cursory review of the latest interviews tells you Scancell are looking at licencing mabs and partnership deals.

"And with the firm’s fate entirely dependent on external investors offering capital"

WRONG - see above. And pointless - a bit like saying Unilever's fate is entirely dependent on consumers buying their products.

"Penny stocks are already high-risk opportunities. But this risk skyrockets when entering into the world of biotech."

True, but that shows a complete lack of context. This article is about Scancell - risks massively mitigated for Scancell for various reasons (which have been discussed here many times)

The article is textbook de-ramping - say a few positives to give the impression of balance, then pull out all the negatives you can think of, ignoring context and using generic arguments.

(MF articles do the same for ramping, just the other way around).

More fool you for considering this to be balanced - as I have said, at best it is the worst kind of lazy journalism, at worst manipulative with a hidden agenda, and quite sinister.

But what do you expect from a "free" tips service? Honesty? Transparency? Good investment advice?

Motley fool make their money somehow, and behind the scenes there will be a reason why this article was written and published now as part of their "free" offering. Think about this for a bit, and stop being so naïve.

Seriously, have you not read my posts? Can we stop now, this is getting boring.

But Ruck, that's not how the article is written.

It's like saying never buy a car because it might go wrong and cost you a lot to fix, while ignoring the fact that you can drive to places quickly.

The article is just very very poor. But, as I said, to be expected from motley fool.

*uninvestable

Not sure what you are talking about, thought we were talking about the motley fool article?

Which, by the way, also ignores the usual baby biotech model about developing to an inflection point and selling. By the fool logic, all small biotechs are investable.

*funding options

I'll Try again…

Sorry RR but there is nothing balanced about the article - it ignores most of Scancells portfolio and finding options. At best lazy journalism, at worst deliberately manipulative.

Fairly standard nonsense for motley fool though