Newsflow v silence16 Sep 2018 15:06
I have to admit that with so much going on in Scancell, in a way I would love to see more newsflow rather than less because I want to hear the very latest stage with every development. On the other hand I wonder if long term watchers of the company have got a bit too used to being spoonfed with updates, and that which could be more significant news is often dulled by being too expected. For example the progress of the combination trial - we were all waiting for the IND submission, then the approval, then the inevitable start of the trial itself. If the IND was not mentioned and an RNS popped up out of the blue for the start of the trial, it gives a much bigger 'step up' when it hits rather than everyone just saying 'yup, but I was expecting that a month ago.' This could (IMO only, as with all of this post) also have a better effect on boosting the share price in response to significant events, rather than every event being a long-expected thing with consequently reduced publicity and impact. Consider what the market reaction could have been if the survival percentages and times of the SCIB1 trial had been kept under wraps until several years had elapsed and then put out in a bigger publicity push. Ever longer SCIB1 survival times became expected and mundane, and the biggest reaction was a negative one when a patient died. Survival 'well beyond the established norms' (copyright K Flaherty) got little or no credit because we were all so well aware of it. I just wonder if there has been a change of tack in news management, because in terms of business-building and scientific interest Scancell is undeniably advancing apace - but we all know that already don't we? See what I mean....?