Member Info for ratcliffewriter

Only if it takes an existing large shareholder over a threshold percentage. On its own it wouldn't be near enough to cause an RNS. Very tidy amount nonetheless and good to see.

Yeah, just thought I'd have a little top up, don't ya know.

And she has a history with Roche.

And a tick back up to 5.70. We're rich I tell you, rich beyond our wildest dreams! Well one day Rodney...!

It's not a beer gut, it's a liquid grain storage facility.

So presumably when he returns he could say "The sp was .13 when I left, it's .13 now. What's the problem?"
He may consider a career in politics next....

According to the RNS, 'the net proceeds will be used to progress the Phase I/II clinical trial of VAL201 to treat prostate cancer and associated metastatic conditions to the conclusion of this stage of the trial and initial data readout, continue the development of ValiRx's pre-clinical VAL301 and VAL101/GeneICE programmes towards the clinic, and for general working capital purposes.'

Just pondering semantically, but interesting to see 'Our first collaboration and evaluation agreement with one of the major players.' Not 'this collaboration' but 'Our first..'

Thanks for the reminder C7. Surprising how easy it is to forget how much good solid development has gone on and is going g on, and how easily we forget it. It's all there and brewing away quietly.

Or should I have said 'My Own Opinion, Compliments On Wisdom.'

Well predicted C7. Most 'predict' matters after the event, rather than having the guts to post up their belief following what is in your case diligent watching. Obvious Intuition, Nice Knowledge. OINK. AIMOO.

Hi Drac - C7 is going to be a bit unsure where you are coming from though - you last post says 'Don't read my Posts..... Read my posts Properly ….(Preferably Don't). By the way, am I allowed to read your posts or are there some qualifying criteria needed to gain permission?

One other thing TF - a little easy research will show you I have been an LSE member since september 2011, since you were pondering.

It's impossible to research a banned poster because for obvious reasons their posts are removed, however as I recall TF, Loz was banned for lies and disruption. If you know of any other reason I will gladly accept it, but they don't ban for honesty and tranquility do they? I notice you have copied part of the 'European language' post of mine from 4 years ago - I'm flattered! Is it possible you copied and pasted a few of Lozan's posts too?

Read my post again TF and you'll see it was a question. If it wasn't for being a disruptive liar, then what was he banned for?

Wasn't he banned for life from here for being a disruptive liar?

Can we just clear up one point of your post there drac? You say of inanaco - 'Is Now happy with a small number Trial when some years ago that he was laughing at the suggestion.' You don't seem to take very well to having detail added to your generalisations, but it needs to be pointed out again that the derision inanaco heaped on a small number trial was one where all detail was very fuzzy and un-forthcoming, it was immensely protracted, all patients died, and even the number of patients treated was unclear until the trial finished as I recall. The small (but significantly larger) Scancell trial was not only clearly laid out and detailed, but also produced clearly significant and attention-grabbing results. See the swimmer chart at very least, then read the relevant RNSs. So it is chalk and cheese in procedure and results, but I believe a lot of your antagonism and wilful ignorance is driven by your having been suckered in by a dud, frustration that the caveats posted on that bb by C7 and Inanaco turned out to be very accurate, and a big dose of sour grapes to those who looked at the detail when you didn't. Just AIMOO obviously.

When you look at even the post-AGM stuff, like announcing a whole new platform, no wonder the BoD had a positive vibe about them!

I seem to remember the 8 patient trial referred to was never confirmed at 8, there was often confusion around the numbers, not to mention the objectives and any relevant detail. The only thing that seemed moderately certain at the end of it was that it wasn't the treatment that killed them. An 8 patient trial with all 8 recovering would be worthy of attention. Provided of course it was also carried out in an internationally respected establishment, and not 'Vladimir's glorious scientific research establishment, combine harvester repair shop and shoe shine services.'
IMO(OOO) the comment from Keith Flaherty of Scib1 results being well beyond the established norms and his continued great enthusiasm for the trial and the product (4 years down the line) tells me all I feel is necessary about the scib1 trial validation. If I wanted another opinion I'd ask one of the many survivors of the trial, but they could be hard to find as they get on with their everyday lives. If I wanted to speak to any of the 8 patients from the trial referred to however, I'd need a ouija board.

It wasn't a case of a post 'suiting' anyone or not. It's discussion - or I could ask as you did 'Would you please stop commenting on my posts and Interprating them In your own way.' But I wouldn't - firstly because it is spelt 'interpreting' and secondly it isn't very productive is it? Anyway, hope you are soon feeling yourself again, or maybe that's the problem.