Member Info for RuckRover

I remember those days as well!

From memory they had a target price of 79p.

Perhaps they will reinstate that now they are back.

Yes, sad news indeed RIP John.

I remember one AGM when someone asked a question about the SP. He dismissed it with distain saying “the BOD have absolutely zero control over the SP. Next?”

That stuck with me and over the years has stopped me getting too worked up about the SP.

Scinv,

I do give consideration to every post and viewpoint - yours being no exception.

Whilst you may well have a point (I don't understand enough about trial protocols to make a judgement) what I DO know is that Bermuda would not deliberately be dishonest. If he had someone wrong who would readily admit it.

So when you call into question the honesty and integrity of one of the most respected posters you just reveal yourself as a bullying egotist.

I would imagine they have plenty to say but aren't quite ready to reveal just yet. I'm not sure why they choose to delay but I guess all will be revealed in due course.

They can't count!

LMAO 😂 😂 😂 😂

I think my text got changed from "tomes" but "tones"( as in "dulcet") works just as well!

C7,

Reading your post today I realised how much I had missed your early morning tones. Always honest and always from the heart.ATB

GF,

"Ruck. But you won’t care because you would be one of the astute and would have sold out at 40p instead of say 60p."

Yes, but that is irrelevant to the discussion which is actually about personalised vaccines and whether there is a place for them.

So if you want to argue your case that they won't, then please do so. I'm afraid the actions of individuals and their investment decisions won't really have an impact in the grand scheme of things.

I can assure you even if you convince me that personalised vaccines have no place in the treatment of cancer it won't affect my decision as to when, how many and at what price to trade.

GF,

"What place do expensive individual vaccines actually have."

As appealing as the idea is to both patients and investors that Scancell will successfully treat 100% of patients in all cancer types that just isn't realistic. So different approaches, including personalised treatments, may well have a part to play.

Of course, if inexpensive, off the shelf treatments are effective in a large percentage, that will free up funds to pay for the more expensive treatments which may be certain patients only hope.

IMO of course.

Or maybe see the big picture but wish the artist worked a bit quicker

"Ruck - just for clarity, stage 2 of the SCOPE trial is due to recruit up to 27 patients, the figure of 43 is for the whole trial (stages 1 and 2 combined) "

Thanks Bermuda, it's good to get the facts straight.

"More BS from Burble/Bermuda"

scinv,

You must be physic being able to say that 6 minutes before Bermuda posted.

Wtp,

Simon stage 2 is just a crude statistical technique that is designed to prevent patients been given treatments that are ineffective. A minimal response in the small stage 1 group is required before recruitment for the bigger stage 2 group. In the case of SCIB1, we already have a response in stage 1, the stage 2 group is 43 so not huge but more statistically significant that 21.

Crackin,

True, but also true of 12,11,10,9,8,6,4,3 and 2 years ago. The only year it was lower than today was 2019. Well done those who bought then (and only then!) A modest profit in 5 years is better than a loss (or break even) over 12.

So what you are really pointing out is we are at an all time low apart from the odd blip due to special circumstances. Strange when you consider the progress over the same period don't you think?

C11,

No, it's not the cardboard - they have enough for a complete refurbishment.

Apparently their communications were down.

The string between the baked bean cans broke. Engineer has been called.

Billy,

"Interesting product"? Not really, bog standard accounting, sales, purchase, manufacturing, forecasting ERP product. However, it had sales, profit and growth (historical and forecast) and a huge target market (BIG companies paying top dollar). Don't forget, in the early nineties companies were panicking about the Y2K issue. Fortuitously, we had to address the Y2K issue in 1986 as one customer ironically was a big pharmaceutical. The controls on drug manufacturing being so strict that batch traceability had to be available for many years. I can't remember exactly how long but certainly way beyond the year 2000.

So you couldn't have picked a more contrasting sector!

C7,

Great to hear from you, hope you are doing ok health wise.

Miss the banter with you as well especially on Chelsea FC.feel free to post anytime you have personal and close up experience of cancer, been a shareholder, attended AGMs and been a non shareholder. I'm sure your perspective will have value.

All the best and keep punching!

Billy,

I get the point, they are indeed very different as I said, I have personal experience of the software market. I just wondered why you are making the comparison - do you think NADAQ is primarily for software companies? When we floated in 1994 on LSE we were trading at 100 times earnings, not as a startup but an established business with revenue, profits and dividends.

Billy,

I agree with what you say but why the comparison to IT products. I'm interested as I develop software and 30 years ago my company floated on the LSE. Pity the Fujitsu Horizon system wasn't subject to more rigorous testing!