Member Info for ratcliffewriter

But please, Paul87, be wary of what Knowlesi rightly calls ' total nonsense and a rumour compounded by ignorance...' There was a poster quite recently talking of an OO being imminent in a piece of poor and baseless scaremongering. I forget who it was now, but they hadn't even got the sense to put 'imvho' or similar.

C7 - So what that paragraph says is that if you see everything turning out OK long term, you can basically relish any drop, even severe and long term ones, if you are satisfied that eventually you will get a good return. A bit like if Scancell did a huge raise at 2p or something. I suppose that's the sort of person who would abuse and try to undermine a balanced poster, and who would probably disappear on days when the sp rises, but be hanging around like a fart in a Volkswagen on days when it retraces. Can't think of anyone who fits that description. Do you knowl anyone like that C7?

'...despite 2x phase 3 cancer clinical trials and another 2 in the relative short term.'? More details please - I seem to have missed the RNSs mentioning anything in phase 3.

The line 'it only has to rise by 2p to be worth while' may not sound much in some shares, but here you are talking a one thousand percent rise to achieve a 2p increase. The word 'only' may be a little optimistic unless some dramatic about-turn takes place.

Don't forget C7 - what Knowlesi posts is not relevant if it is wrong. Hence his comment on Monday to me 'you've cut and pastw part of my post...very weak.' Apart from bad spelling, it seems that if you quote him and show him to be wrong, that doesn't count. Perhaps he's better suited to a career in politics.. (Not a dig, obviously, as Drac would seek to reassure viewers too)

When they say "short term working capital requirements" does that mean salaries and bar bill, or something actually useful to the science?

Maybe admin want to trick Knowlesi into thinking you've gone AWOL...?!

'Partners had signed up for the P3'? Do you mean 401 update information in the RNS directing readers to the Hardman report? All that says is 'Letters of Intent with two partners to progress VAL401 further into the clinic.' No mention of Phase 3 anywhere that I can find, and if it really was the case I think they would have mentioned it specifically don't you? Please tell me where a phase 3 VAL401 trial is actually mentioned as an impending event.

I think MENCAP would be better used helping Team Damp to be honest.

Sex.

There's only one ball game I like. And it isn't football.

'stating buys and sells isnt whats being discussed' you say., in response to being called out on your post which said '...when sells out weigh buys...'
I think we'll leave it there.

Let's just clarify this - you wrote 'C7 - with all due respect I do find it strange how you go missing when sells out weigh buys and the share price remains the same'. My 15.21 took about two minutes of checking to prove that at best you were utterly wrong, at worst you were deliberately posting false information. You have made an excellent job of illustrating my point about the value of checking facts, but maybe put the shovel down now, you've dug a deep enough hole for yourself.

For the benefit of anyone new to the minefield of bulletin boards, a good example of doing one's own research into anything that is posted came earlier today. Poster Chelsea7 was accused of 'going missing' when sells outweigh buys or the share price remains the same. A clear accusation of a poster being biased in favour of positives only. So I did a quick trawl back and found that within the last week alone Chelsea7 has posted a number of posts reflecting the positive movement of the share (because that is what has happened!) but he also posted these -
SCLP
Volume 223k
Thu 13:38
Buys 56k
Sells 167k

SCLP
£8,700s Worth of Trades
Thu 12:51
4.5/5.3
- 6.67%

SCLP
Tick Down
Thu 12:10
4.5/5.3

SCLP
Tick Down
Thu 10:54
4.8/5.3....................................

SCLP
Volume 138k
Thu 09:01
Buys 1k
Sells 137k

SCLP
Ah.....200k Sell
Wed 12:19
5.025

SCLP
Tick Down
Wed 09:19
4,5/5.2!!

SCLP
Volume 791k
Mon 14:51
Buys 566k

Sells 225k
Delayed sell to come?

So - check everything, and beware of dismissive posts, especially the sweeping accusatory ones. As Abraham Lincoln said: "Never believe everything you read on the internet."

To me that is very reassuring. Think also how a couple of years ago the idea of combo trials was all the rage – there were literally hundreds, possibly over a thousand combinations being tried, most with two drugs, some with three – it was pointed out that identifying the reason for any success would have been almost impossible. And where are those trials now? Where is the combination that seeks to improve on or even supersede the 30 percent successful Keytruda? I suspect that at least some of the reason for the delay in the combination of SCIB1 and Keytruda is because it has been managed and prepared with infinite care, avoided jumping in headlong in a bid to rival quick results, and is now starting because the scientists, not the accountants, are happy it is properly ready to do its best. Now that isn’t a guarantee of success, but it is a source of reassurance for those who trust LD’s science and approach, as is Flaherty’s continued enthusiasm and involvement.
Of course it isn’t just KF. It is CRUK. Karolinska. BioNtech. Roche. Heads of Department joining from Immunocore and Mereo BioPharma. Collaborative work with Oncimmune. Manufacturing and commercialising agreements with ISA Pharmaceuticals. The Addario Lung Cancer Medical Institute (a collaboration to evaluate the use of SCIB2) – will they come into play with the SCIB2 trial under way?
And now we can look at a return to trials. Several trials in fact. Look carefully through the RNSs to decide for yourself – It takes a long time to go through several years of them but it is the best was of getting a feel for the way the company is run. As I said before, you can see how this is being built, what the hurdles have been, and this will dictate how you see the future unfolding for Scancell. And if you are still not convinced, then so be it. Anything could happen, but there is a lot more information available from reliable sources. You can always email the board and you will get a reply. As for posters on here, there are plenty who share my enthusiasm, but also they can provide links to first-hand sources to justify their beliefs and will engage to inform.

So there you have it - at least there is a Bank Holiday Monday to digest my thoughts!

Cause of much wailing and gnashing of teeth, hardly surprising really! But look at what Moditope promises, its success in humanised mice, the fact there is no plan to use it in combination with any other drug because it has 100 percent success. As the company said, how can you improve on that? But clinical trials have been consistently delayed – why? Numerous reasons, but one of the developments was an increase in its efficacy, requiring a dose 99 percent smaller than originally planned – so from an accountant’s point of view that multiplies your profits by 100. From a patient’s point of view it is 99 percent less intrusive, and development like that takes time and money. It then took a very long time to select the correct adjuvant for MOD1 – why should such a decision be rushed? If you are going to do uncharted work with such a promising product, get it right. Otherwise it is like putting the gloss paint on without sanding or undercoating. The secret to a good finish is in thorough preparation. What would shareholders or prospective shareholders say if they’d rushed into a MOD1 trial with a larger dose and a poorly selected adjuvant? Or if they’d decided to start the SCIB2 trial and only later announced they could have done it with the nanoparticle delivery but couldn’t be bothered to wait? It would have been a huge waste of money, far more than the perceived delays have cost, and on top of that could well have fatally wounded the company. Rushing the trials would have caused a great deal of irrecoverable and fundamental problems. Fastidious development is frustrating but ultimately a massive investment for a far better prospect of good returns.
I remember the ‘AGM of doom’ in 2015 (as I recall) when a further delay to Moditope was announced – and apart from the tangible frustration of shareholders, I remember particularly the look of disappointment on LD’s face – it was a genuine look that she had had to postpone getting treatment to patients. Those of you who have not had the pleasure of meeting her need to do so if possible. She is the jewel in the Scancell crown and you won’t meet a more genuine and sincere scientist, someone who can be interrogated on every aspect of the science and will reply in full detail, and in terms that an ordinary non-scientist can understand. Speak to her and you come away with a lasting confidence that she believes in her work and is as diligent and realistic as they come. But if course it isn’t just lay people who have that faith in the science. In Botski’s recording of the presentation a few weeks ago JC was asked directly if Flaherty was still on board. The answer was an immediate and unequivocal ‘Yes.’ And that is after four years of involvement. An annoying length of time I agree, but long enough for him to look deeper and deeper at the SCIB combo project, and also to see heaven knows how many other therapies, but still stay committed to Scancell’s science.

You could have two parallel companies drilling with exactly the same progress, the same RNSs, the same apparent hopes, and then one day one company becomes a massive producer, the other reports it has found two pints of water, some sand and a dinosaur bone.
At least with a bio you can hope to see a little more by way of foundations building up – like watching a house being built, whereas oilies are more like having someone working in a shed next door, and they don’t call you in to see the result until it is finished. Only then do you find if you like it or not.
Scancell have made visible (and valid) scientific progress along the way for actual and potential investors to see – In December 2012 preliminary evidence from Part 1 of the SCIB1 study showed that it produced an immune response which might be associated with clinical benefit in patients. Note ‘might be associated’ – Scancell’s words from the RNS. Cautious indeed, and realistic.
Fast forward 6 years and look at page 15 of this link https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/upload/SponsorFile/File/2018_03/1520590951_Scancell---3.pdf
Look at the results of SCIB1 so far. 6 years is a long time, but that’s how long the vast majority of SCIB1 patients have survived. You could make progress look busier if you had a 6 month trial and all died within that time or shortly afterwards, then do more trials and have them survive a bit longer and so on – you get my drift? But six years and counting is fantastic – ‘well beyond the established norms’ as Keith Flaherty said. Who is Keith Flaherty? Google him. There isn’t space here. And he made that quote in 2015 – four years ago. He is the man leading the combination trial which is due to start imminently, a combination of SCIB1 with Keytruda, which earns billions per year now, but only with about 30 percent success. So what price a significant improvement on the best available? Make your own guesses there, but worth the wait I’d say. What are you going to do otherwise – blame the patients for living too long? Blame SCIB1 for working too well? And SCIB1 is only one product from the platform.
SCIB2 – being trialled by CRUK - You will have heard of them - they are spending millions of pounds of donated cash to trial SCIB2. They don’t have money to burn – it is a significant endorsement of the science and its potential.
Of course one of the big moan areas from Team Damp is the fact that the company’s original plan to sell up didn’t materialise. The idea was to get SCIB1 into the clinic, and sell up, lock stock and barrel. So why didn’t they? Because of Moditope. (Vindicated also by the results of SCIB1, but Moditope was the prime reason) Its creation in 2013 prompted the raise of 6.5 million in the July, and the fact it was at 22.5p caused a drop in the sp from which it has not recovered. Yet.

The biggest annoyances with AIM stocks have to be time and money. From Scancell’s shareholders’ point of view they have taken years to produce no comercial product and have required revenue by placings. That in itself is a warning to anyone thinking of investing in an AIM stock to think very carefully, not put in more than you can afford to lose, and over all possibly save anguish and not bother.
So why am I still in Scancell? I have been in other AIM stocks, some I have made tidy sums on, others I have lost fairly hefty amounts. I don’t discuss figures due to the bitter vultures who frequent a lot of these sites, and after all who do you believe here? OK – I am 120 grand in profit. Actually I’m on 120k loss. Be part of the knowlesi’s team ramp and believe the former. Be part of team damp and believe the latter. It matters not to anyone else anyway.
So back to Scancell – I can’t even remember how I first came across them, but I put money in in the very low teens and held into the 30s, pleased to have made a decent percentage and slightly wiser after losing out on another stock that had looked so good but faded. I can’t honestly remember what trades I have done - I don’t keep accurate figures as it is very much the ‘fun’ side of my financial stuff – but I have held some of my current holding for a considerable time, and some for a lot less, and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that I am currently sitting on a loss. So why not sell? Why not have sold ages ago? There seems to be a broad concensus that the company will eventually come good, but how much of a roller-coaster pattern will the share price graph perform on its way? At the moment it looks more like a ski slope. So how do you decide what to do? DYOR – Do Your Own Research, and most of all, doubt the motives of everyone who posts on a bulletin board
My preferred policy for factual information is to go through RNSs – bearing in mind that some companies seem to use Enid Blyton to write theirs, it is often good to look back over a number of years to see what promises turned into what results.
Reviewing the Scancell RNSs the biggest problem is time – projected dates, quarters or even years for particular trials to start have slipped and slipped, but running costs carry on and more funds are required to keep the wheels turning, hence some bitter criticism from various quarters over the years, especially when looked at coldly – money in, nothing out. At least nothing commercial, but some interesting data and some very solid progress and expansion, and on AIM that is probably one of the most important things to look out for – for example an oil company will need money to survey and drill, that’s easily understood. They may then run into hitches of geology as they drill, and then need more money to overcome those problems. But until the day the get oil to the surface in commercial quantities it is very hard to see if they are approaching success or not.

Neigh lad.

Stella figures? That'll be 4.2 percent abv. Or do you mean stellar?