Member Info for RuckRover

And your point is?

Another total nonsense reply.
I never said they were the same patents.
Your 22.23 suggested, quite wrongly, I discovered that other bios had patents.
This was a complete misrepresentation of our earlier discussion.
You stated that Scancell was NOT like “every other bio” since as you put it “it has patents”
So what, every bio “has patents”.
You comment “they are not the same patents” is ludicrous. If they were the same, they would not, by definition be awarded a patent. A patent is by definition something unique.
If you had been awarded a patent, like I have, then you would possibly understand the whole concept of patents a bit better.

“the other day you discovered other Bio had patents ... “
no, the other day, when you tried to argue that Scancell were not like “every other bio” you said “Scancell have patents”
It was I who pointed out to YOU that “other bios have patents”
Is your memory that bad or are you deliberately misrepresenting the facts?

I repeat, NONE of understand it. Myself and Bermuda are intelligent enough to realise that. Unfortunately your intelligence is inversely proportional to your ego and you THINK you understand it or at the very least think you understand it more than you in fact do.

NONE of us understand it full stop.
The very thought of showing a professor of oncology this thread is laughable beyond imagination.
You really need to try and get over yourself.

Wild,
Enjoy your break, it is a very nice place. My previous company installed the showers there.

"even when i show you a wheel is round .. you will argue its square …"

No, you show me a square wheel and because it's a wheel you insist it therefore must be round even though it is in fact a square wheel.
This is the fundamental flaw in your logic that I pointed out earlier.
Anyway, no point arguing with you, you will never get it and even if you did you wouldn't admit it. I'll leave you in peace in Inan-Land or is that cloud cuckoo land?

Inan,
"so you have to show how Keytruda will not engage a Dendritic cell activated T cell ............. wow ... could luck with that one if your searching Google …"

OK, so using YOUR logic.

There is nothing on google to show how Keytruda (or any other CI) will not engage a Dendritic cell activated T cell
Therefore, there are no circumstances in which Keytruda WON'T engage Dendritic cell activated T cell

For that to be true, every possible research that is conceivable has not only been carried out, but also, published and available via google.

Surely, even you can see how stupid your argument is?

Inan,
"SCIB1 only engages Dendritic cells ... it does NOT engage T cells directly thus ""NO synergy""exists between SCIB1 and a T "cell "

If SCIB1 engaged dentric cells and in turn those dentric cells activate T-cells then indirectly there IS synergy (indirectly)
This was your logic earlier in the argument. We both seem to have switched sides lol!

berm,
lol

crumbs,
You are right of course, most of us here note what Scancell themselves are saying not fruit loops.

"Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) such as Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) and Opdivo® (nivolumab) relieve the immunosuppression present in the tumour microenvironment, which can affect an individual’s immune response to their cancer. There is a clear rationale for using an ImmunoBody® to prime an immune response against a tumour to enhance the efficacy of such CPIs. This potential has been confirmed in preclinical studies, which indicate that SCIB1 and an anti-PD1 antibody CPI have similar activity levels as monotherapies and have a strong synergistic effect when administered together. The combination of CPI treatment with a therapeutic vaccine has the potential to increase the proportion of patients who respond to the combined treatment. This hypothesis will be tested in Scancell’s Phase 2 clinical study of SCIB1 in late-stage melanoma patients receiving Keytruda® as standard of care."

Note the words "HAS THE POTENTIAL TO...."
Nothing proven until it is PROVEN.

The whole point is NONE of us have a crystal ball (not one that works anyway)!
If we did, I would have bought a million pounds worth at 3.6p and sold the lot at 9p.

Inan,
I have never disputed the statement "Keytruda is approved"
It clearly is. It is the other statements you make that I am disputing, ie, Synergy between Keytruda and SCIB1 is proven.
If you want to debate, please argue the points I have made not the ones I haven't.
BTW, what, when and how much I paid is not relevant to this debate. You obviously have to drag that in because you are incapable of arguing the actual topic being discussed.

Just so the unwary and gullible don't swallow your nonsense, here's an example of your predictive powers.....
**************************************************************
inanaco
8 Jun '18 - 09:45 - 16222 of 25059
With so much good stuff coming out via RNS over the next 18 months, i don't expect any major pull backs in the share price. As your an LTH you can appreciate what I am saying, and indeed you should be well aware of my understanding on the subject of scancell and the way it connects with the industry.
*******************************************************************************
Good stuff! The share price at the time was 15p. It subsequently went as low as 3.6p

"its the catch you out Post crumbs / Ruck ......…"
No, it's another catch yourself out post

"because its actually proven in trial "
Nothing is proven in trial YET so please stop saying it is. It is grossly misleading

"thus ... keytruda must have synergy .."
Your logic to arrive at this statement is fundamentally flawed. We HOPE it has synergy, this is what the TRIAL will prove one way or the other. Bring on the trial!

Crumbs,
I know it's the unforeseen but you, I and most here don't claim to be able to see the unforeseen. Only Inan claims he CAN'T see the unforeseen therefore it can't happen!!!!

Inan,

You've have posted (in one post):

"4/ So synergy ""has"" to exist ... in theory "

"i will repeat again .................. what is the possible mechanism of failure ????? that would thwart ""Synergy """

The first statement you state (correctly) it should work IN THEORY
The second statement you are saying it HAS to work.

For clarity, which of the two contradictory statements should we believe?

Also, for balance, could I just point out that your track record in foreseeing failure is not good.

Ray,
No I hadn't had my first coffee as you rightly spotted, but I have now.
I saw the RNS for VAL, and at first glance thought the SP was 22p and got a bit excited. When my eyes focussed properly I realised it was .22pand fely myself falling towards team DAMP.
Of course, any funding of one of Scancell's collaborators has to be good whether or not any of it finds its way to us as cold hard cash.
Feeling better now, less damp anyway.

Ray,
“Perhaps this first $100 mil IPO is just to pay Scancell up front LOL”
I think you need to broaden your horizons and extend your vision. BioNTech have numerous “collaborations” going on. Scancell don’t get a mention on their collaborations page on their website.

Ratty,
My other favourite football quote was when AstroTurf came over to the uk in the 70s. Frank Worthington was asked if he preferred grass to AstroTurf. He replied, I don’t know, I never smoked AstroTurf.