Member Info for RuckRover

Inan,
“ would you go on a plane and a bus with a mask on ?”
No, the question you need to ask is..
If you HAD to go on a plane or a bus, would you wear a mask.
Answer YES. 1} it is obligatory. 2) it protects others if you are infected. 3} it protects you.

“does it give you confidence ?”
Not especially, but seeing everyone else wearing one would.

I struggle to understand why so many are failing to grasp this simple concept - the wearing of masks is to PROTECT OTHERS. I guess the more you care about others, the more you get it.

Inan,
That’s very helpful, thanks.

Inan,
Would you care to explain the connection between the 2 articles?
Which one does the “oh dear” refer to?

He wants golden nuggets but ends up fruit loops.

Chester,
Thanks for the reply. I do know what you mean, we all use words that we think we know and assume others will interpret them in exactly the same way that we meant them.
I agree that there has been progress the last few years, as you say, Modi has improved. If it has improved on something that is already robust then I'm sure it is true to say that the robustness has improved as well.
As you say, trial data is the key. I'm only repeating what Cliff Holiway has said in presentations past.
Knowlesi does make another good point - it is very difficult to debatewith someone who makes things up about people. For the record, I have never said " human blood work and mouse data" is insignificant, it is of course very significant. Without this, I doubt we would even be contemplating human trials and thus have the chance of producing data that people will not only take notice of but invest significant amounts of dosh.

I think you have to have some sympathy for Knowelsi points.

I agree that there is no chance ll raising £15m at 5p. There would have to be a substantial discount to the prevailing rate which looks to be heading for 5p.

As of yet, the robustness of the science is inproven. This is why we need the trials to prove it at which point we may be able to convince some big players.

Debating the theory around the science until we are blue in the face doesn't actually "prove" anything. Otherwise, people far more qualified, knowledgeable and intelligent than us would already be doing so, thus avoiding the need for trials.

Here’s one for the archives...

“people are still dying .. but less lethally “

Lol, it’s either lethal (and causes death) or it not lethal (and doesn’t cause death)

Crumbs,
I wouldn’t pay much attention to Sikora. He was the one who said the Libyan Lockerbie bomber had only 3 months to live with prostate cancer. On that basis he was released but lived for a number of years after.

Thanks for good wished C7 and everyone else who did.

Dracula - good repost.

Crumbs - good paper, I'll have a read just before bed.

Thanks miavoce.
One of the problems with lacking skills and experience in a certain area is being able to assess who has so recruitment becomes a challenge.

Inan,
“ Those expectations have not changed”
Are you saying that when you first invested in 2012 you expected to tie your capital up for eight years with zero return?
Or
Was there an expectation of £3.20 within 12/18 months as alluded to by RG?

I think 99.9% of investors here have had their expectations changed. The other .1% are just lying :)

Thanks crumbs.
Statistically, there is a very high probability that one of the RNS has come out on one of our birthdays.

C7, thanks for the comprehensive response.
I’ve never blamed the board solely for where we are. Could they have done things differently - yes. Might doing things differently have yielded better results - possibly not.
The fact is, this isn’t like an episode of the apprentice where the teams are given a fairly simple eminently doable task. The success or failure is entirely down to their competence or incompetence. Biotech is far more complex, the human body is infinitely complex and the approaches to fixing it equally complex. There are obstacles that could not be foreseen, regulatory considerations and in some cases just plain bad luck.
If we want to apportion blame, we should blame ourselves for our distorted expectations- we all thought we would make a lot more money a lot quicker. This fact alone is the main driver of board criticism in my view. We didn’t realise the enormous cost of developing one drug let alone 6 or 7.
I have to put you straight on your comment of “ the constant bleatings on ADVFN of the BODs incompetence” - there aren’t any. There is the odd comment, but no more and no less than the odd comment here. Panama (who I met at lithe AGM) was the most vociferous but he hasn’t posted for many weeks, I just hope he is OK. Still, as you don’t visit, you were not to know that.

Well, I have restored my 1 year older than you status today, so go easy!

Keiny1,
“ IMO if SCLP need to raise again for any reason then it is further evidence that the board are simply awful at the commercial value realising side of things. ”

Just to add to C7’s response, there is only one reason for raising cash, that is you have run out of or about to run out of money. The running out of money is due to costs (facilities, salaries etc) exceeding revenue (sales, licence fees, grants etc).
Now whether or not to lay that at the feet of the board is a matter of opinion and debate.
Not meant to be negative, just a statement of fact.

TF,
Although in fairness to you, others haven’t finished (and probably never will!)

TF,
“ Ruck - I'd finished actually”
Oh, that’s ok then. A bit like a bank robber caught by the police loading th e last bag of lolly into the van - “I’ve finished actually Officer” lol.

Inan,
Interesting article.
What warning to you mean when you talk about “no warning given”. Lack of efficacy?
I’d still have it even if there was a 60% chance of it working.

TF,
Well no RNS! Still, doesn’t mean we can’t discuss the company we are invested in does it?

Looks like the LSE timestamp is 7 minutes fast.
Could you fix this LSE?

Morning everyone,
Oh for a stonking RNS in 15 minutes. An update on SCIB1 , SCIB2, MODI, Avidimab, Covidity, funding - in fancy ANYTHING so we have something to discuss rather than politics and bickering.