Member Info for ratcliffewriter

Nobody has mentioned 'next week' or any date that I can see either. What's been quoted is the 'within weeks' from Sky news, or 'as soon as possible' from (as I recall) one of the scientists. Same old same old from the doomie echo chamber sadly.

Of course you are. The suggestion that a really bad news presentation could have been recorded and then subtly shown to selected 'clients' is obviously a realistic and feasible scenario. Not.

So that's blown that poor deramp out of the water then Kashdog. Your buddy AB124 was saying at the weekend not to sell at all. You guys need to get your heads together maybe.

Quote possible they a) don't want to be seen to be following something Sky got to first, and b) don't want to be seen to be helping anyone outside their champagne socialist enclave of Islington.

Agree cars - it's a presentation, and all well and good, lots to present and be interested in and excited about. But for years and years presentations have been just that, and unrelated to anybother specific activity. Doesn't stop me thinking of 'matter of weeks' for some exciting news to come out.

Maths never my strong point - the proportion is still of no significance as far as I'm concerned. Nobody said 'takeover bid' when a similar number were bought, so any cries of 'sell-off' are equally outlandish with last week's trades. As for Diggle's integrity, I am absolutely happy with it. IMO there is no way that the other board members would appoint anyone who was anything other than entirely trustworthy, nor would they want to be funded by an enterprise that wasn't aligned with their long term goals as far as stability and prosperity were concerned. Vulpes level of investment and extent of research due diligence before putting money into sclp speak volumes too. Just thought that needs saying to clarify where I stand.

More 'hard to prove', but for 0.2 percent of a holding after purchases at the end of last year, I'm not going to lose sleep over any aspect of it.

Diggle would, but Vulpes Life Science Fund might not.

For those debating who might be a possible suitor it's worth noting from that article the line 'GSK, Merck and Sanofi shares have fallen between 13 and 30 per cent'.
A successful Covid vaccine is altruistic but also highly profitable.

https://youtu.be/OzThdaCMVMo

They gave him the brush off. He was rendered useless.

Had money troubles too, but was eventually solvent.

That's the one. Very set in his ways. In the end the law caught up with him. I believe he's now in the can.

Sorry to distracted Ray, but his name was Ron. Ron Seal.

And the man who died after drinking a tin of polyurethane varnish. It was a terrible end, but a lovely finish.

Glue is a difficult habit to break. I knew someone who seemed addicted to brake fluid, drank loads of it, but reckoned he could stop really easily.

Something not to be sniffed at indeed. Or maybe it should...

To put the recent RNSs into some context, here's the list of Vulpes trades going back a bit - SOLD27th April 2020 500k @8p. Total holding 17.2%28th April 2020 1,500,000 @8p Total holding 16.9%BOUGHT 10/11/20 Open offer - subscribed for 3,670,000 @13p. Following the subscription Vulpes held 116.7 million shares, 14.3% of the company.13/11/20 500,000 @11-12.2p. Total holding 14.4%.14/12/20 248,000 @10.5p Total holding 14.4%15/11/20 750,000 @10.5p Total holding 14.5%SOLD17/2/21 400,000 @23.7p Total holding 14.5%19/2/21 1,250,000 @25.5 Total holding 14.3%19/2/21 400,000 @27.25 Total holding 14.3%.Also needs emphasising that these dealings are all by Vulpes who are as we know an investment fund - they are only declared because of Martin Diggle's proximity to the fund as a non-executive director. If this obligation for transparency were not declared and someone discovered it, think what effect that would have on the SP. Conspiracy theories would abound! If you invested in a fund that made the sort of percentage gains that Vulpes have made (albeit on tiny proportions of their ownership) I think you'd feel they had been shrewd, banked some profit, and probably picked a winner - as their track record would suggest. The difference in holdings between the buys and sells is all of 0.2 percent - I don't think anyone could suggest that variation is anything even vaguely hinting at a 'sell off', any more than a 0.2 percent increase could be seen as a 'takeover move.' Just trying to put things into perspective in as non-aggressive a way as possible.

Mentioning Scancell by name might be classed as 'aggressive enthusiasm' in certain quarters and therefore not allowed.

Love the youtube clip - and don't forget, the eventual result is the facility to consume large amounts of alcohol in celebration.