Member Info for RuckRover

going to have a long wait?
Some of us already have HAD a long wait!

Inan,
If you identify the point(s) you consider “drivel” and why, we could have a sensible, adult debate.

Inan,
""I am not holding shares then claiming Scancell has failed ... ""
So what? So far Scancell (and the science) has failed in the areas outlined in my 13:52. The only difference between you and most enlightened contributors to this board is that they see it and admit and you don't (either see it or admit it)
The statement "Scancell has failed to deliver a return to investors" is irrefutably true.

Please refer back to my 13:52 which is my response to your challenge "how has the science failed"
Please note the terms "to date" and "on its own"
The fact that Scancell has so far "failed" does not necessarily mean it won't succeed in the future. Although the longer the debacle drags on, the lower the chance of success or the likelihood is a lower return will be achieved. The pie is a finite size, the more money spent on research and trials means less pie to distribute amongst shareholders. Surely you get that?

When I invested back in 2012, it seemed that a healthy multiple in a reasonable timeframe would be achieved. That never happened and we are where we are now.

So please don't dictate to me (and others) whether or not I should hold or sell. It is my decision and mine alone.

""one has to presume your 10p shares took a hit …""
Yes of course they have, they are now worth 5p. These are my best performing tranch.
The ones I bought in one of the open offers at 22p have taken a bigger hit.

I am in no different situation to many investors in Scancell - including you so I really don't know why you think it has any relevance to your argument let alone gives it any credence.

You keep bringing up VAL - why? It has nothing to do with Scancell. Or are you trying to make out Scancell's enormous loss isn't so bad by pointing out ones that are worse?

Regarding my own investment in VAL, you don't know what I paid, what I sold for and whether I still have any so again, a completely impotent argument.
Try and stick to the facts, preferably the relevant ones.

"""if somebody could string a sentence on the failure of the science then it would explain "delay" .....

The science has, to date, failed to secure a deal.
The science, to date has failed to attract significant, non-dilutory investment.
The science, to date, has failed to get the scib1 combo trial started on time.
The science, on its own, has failed to achieve a return for investors.
The science, on its own, has failed to attract the attention of big pharma in any meaningful way (ie cash)

Need I go on?

A pointless challenge, since most thinking people here realise it is NOT all about the science so please stop inferring it is, it Isn't.

As Bermuda rightly points out, it has been Scancell setting the expectations with soundbites such as "many multiples of current sp" (at 33p!), "trials to commence immediately", "monetise assets" etc etc etc.

AIMO as always.

Morning C7, Knowelesi,
I’m afraid I have to agree with Knowlesi on this occasion.
I think Scancell May have missed the boat on SCIB1. The longer this drags on, the further away the boat sails.

SCIB1 is a single target treatment (Melanoma ) , probably the most congested and competitive immunotherapy market there is. The moditope platform is multi target, some of the targets being hard to treat so a better chance of competing.

Let’s hope Modi does deliver to plan.
SCIB1 I’d sell off to the highest bidder (if any exist)

>I thought popes were not allowed to obfuscate<
But they are allowed to pontificate!

C7,

No trades?
Not really surprising when there have been no news, no updates and no progress.

ATB.

Yes, well done bob.
A few more and a place on the board?

Nom,
Importantly, not for the volumes Vulpes were able to purchase!

crumbs,
Love the name - BeiGene.

Perhaps Scancell should consider changing their name to Nottsimmu or Oximoo?

Mable,
Enjoyed your post, you should do it more often!
I too was invested in Proteome, I think I lost money but all memory has been erased.
At the time of the Proteome hype peak, I guess people were warning about other Biotechs who had
Crashed. I suppose many argued that Proteome would be different.
I note the same is happening now.
ATB

Ray,
I appreciate the consideration, coffee wearing off, been a hard day in the office and debating whether wine would be a good idea given it is only Tuesday!

At some point you have to either drink the beer or sell it. Making more and more beer with no market will only result in an over supply and depressed prices.

Now where’s the corkscrew?

Morning All,

I must say I get slightly irritated by talk of “the science”. All Biotech companies have some sort of science, in the field of immunology, “the science” is pretty much the same. You either stimulate/improve an immune response or remove the blockers or both. The path through the teens, into the twenties and beyond is now no longer down to “the science” it is now purely down to proving the science is effective in humans in real world trials. The deals will come on the back of data not “science”.

It would be like Mercedes F1 banging on about the internal combustion engine, the mechanism of activation being the spark that ignites the fuel that drives the piston. I can’t remember the last time I heard anyone from Mercedes talk about that in isolation. They talk about the whole package, driver, tyres, pit stop strategy, weight, brakes, software, analytics. To be the best, you have to excel in ALL departments. Otherwise you could have the best driver, best engine but fitted some cheap remould tyres on the rear wheels.

I’ll get a coffee now!

Morning All,
Yes it was me that asked the question. The emphatic yes was predominantly nodding of heads which possibly explains why you have difficulty picking it up on the recording!

That’s ok wtp!
The larger companies trademark everything - colours, fonts, symbols and logos.

Wtp,
To be completely watertight, you should trademark both the product AND company name.
If Scancell were not trademarked, there would be nothing stopping another company trademarking it. They could then trademark a product MabAvid which they could market as Scancell MabAvid. Not only would this confuse the market, Scancell (our Scancell) would not be able to market Scancell AvidiMab but only AvidiMab.

I had a close association with a company called EDS who were sued by Ross Perot’s EDS a big Texan consultancy firm. Fortunately, my EDS had trademark protection and it resulted in the Othner EDS h acing to fork out several million dollars to continue using the name.

Morning All, C7,

Never mind 6, I’d be happy with 1 - first patient dosed.
No need to speculate on this, it is just a matter of time. Although, we could speculated on time. Did my 6 to 13 weeks definition pass?
As regards to money burning a hole in the pockets of BioNTech, maybe some will come Scancells way. The situation can’t be bad for Scancell, whether it turns out good or not remains to be seen.

C7, yes I did - interesting.
I didn't understand the "actively working with Ichor". What is there to work on. I thought it was more a case of we are waiting for Ichor to sort themselves out with the FDA and let us know when it is resolved so we can resubmit the IND?
Look at the AGM presentation SA said discussions between Ichor and FDA were privileged information. It wouldn't be "privileged information" if they were "actively working together" would it?

TBH, I'm more interested in the "first patient dosed" RNS. It doesn't matter where the data is generated if it is good (unless you are one of the unlucky ones in America who are deprived of the opportunity)

C7,
I find that a bit of a strange response given that at the AGM Sally Adams stated they had no control over the Ichor application as it was to a completely different department to which they had no access.

I guess what he means is that Ichor will let them know when they have got approval and Scancell can then resubmit their own IND.

ATB