Member Info for RuckRover

Morning C7,
Didn’t see your 6.51 before I posted.
You make some valid points regarding DE.
As a very experienced person in the world of biotech, and having been involved in numerous companies, it is somewhat reassuring that out of all of these he has chosen to invest a significant amount of his personal money in Scancell.

Ray,
Scancell may well have trademark protection but I see Coca Cola have applied for “modicoke”

Morning all,
Yes, my comments were rather harsh. Perhaps the scenario I paint is as unlikely as the one crumbs paints is likely.
The point is, BioNTech acquired Neon for just 12% of its IPO price. Well done them! The other 88% of its value was the loss suffered by investors. Just goes to show what a high risk this sector is.
I accept that there is a lot of potential with all that is happening at Scancell but it wouldn’t be the first time a valuable asset hasn’t been mismanaged to worthlessness.
Well, it’s 6:55 now. Let’s hope in 5 minutes I’ll be eating my words. ATB.

Crumbs, I’m sure professor Durrant would not want to give her baby away but she is not in a position to do so. At least she has the option of leaving and discovering something else. And when she is ready to commercialise it may pick her business partners more carefully.

WTP,
It’s a trademark, not patent, they are different.

Crumbs, well I must say, your scenario is preferable. Whether or not it is more realistic remains to be seen. Let’s hope it is eh?

Bermuda,
So I guess BioNTech’s strategy will be to wait until Scancell have raised £100m from their long suffering shareholders and having used the money on Director’s life style and a bit on advancing the technology, do a take over for £20M. With at least a billion shares in issue by then we should get around 2p a share. Makes DE’s 22p seem mighty attractive!

C7, yes it was the best outcome we could have hoped for - entire tumour removed with no loss of movement in left side which was a concern. Back home and recovering now.

Morning C7, All,
Very sad story indeed. It seems very unlikely to happen even bizarre. Statistically, the chances of it happening to an individual in a given profession are the same as an individual in any other profession unless the profession in question has an inherently higher risk. For example, long distance lorry drivers are prone to skin cancer on the right side of the face (in Europe it is the left side)

I remember watching a program a few years back about a medical student who did an internship with a prominent cancer expert in a rare blood cancer. He decided to specialise in that field and incredibly was diagnosed with it. His colleague’s collected enough money to get him a personalised treatment (several hundred thousand dollars) and he was cured.
Wishing every A good week.

Welcome to the BB Loch.
An interesting article - shows the wide range of approaches being tried in attempt to beat cancer. The article does say the approach could possibly be used on cancer types other than pancreatic but this is an initial target due to it being one of the “hard to treat” ones and a lack of early diagnosis.
Thanks for posting It.

Inan,
Did I ever say I was expecting a bid or is this another figment of your imagination?

Non exec he was yes. I’d still take what he says over you all day long.

Inan,
You can wriggle as much as you like DE used the word “erroneous” about YOUR post.
Now who should we believe: an experienced director in the Biotech sector and ex chairman of Scancell or....?

Inan,
you ask...
"If i was not on this BB ... what would your little gang get up to .... ? "
Answer: probably have a civilised exchange of views and opinions.

Bermuda,
Don't worry about it too much. I guess Inan is still a bit touchy about having his posts described as "erroneous" by David Evans.

Bermuda, thanks for the reply. I guessed that was what you meant. ATB

Bermuda, the report stated (7 years ago) that Scancell had overcome this. I can only assume that the “struggle” is to bring it into the clinic?

Inan,

So you original post was “IMH0 my not come”

You then claimed to have said “IMHO it was not required”

Then you said you first statement had a typo and should read “IMHO May not come”

Could you clarify what your actual stance is? It would appear you are disputing the unequivocal statement from the board at the AGM that said they WOULD issue a “first patient dosed RNS”

It would seem that even ex BOD members are calling your posts “erroneous”.

If what you MEANT to say was what you said you said in your latest post, why not just say so? Instead of pretending you said something you didn't actually say.

What you actually said was:

"Only Scib1 is in Flux because your all expecting an RNS "first patient" which IMHO my not come due to previous release which i have been Criticised for pointing out "

big difference ...