Member Info for RuckRover

Inan,
You posted...…
QUOTE...………………….
which backs up what i said
"... makes no difference to scancell because we have the fall back plan "scientifically approved" ie CRUK and Scancells scientist have successfully adopted the Nanoparticle. delivery system."
END QUOTE

My point was it DOESN'T back up what you said!!!!!
It is NOT "scientifically proven" (yet)
Just reposting your erroneous claptrap will not make it true!

Also, when you say
"makes no difference to scancell"
I'm afraid it does and will continue to do so. You have to think it through (or read what people are saying on ADVFN if you are unable to think it through yourself.

The original plan was to conduct a combination trial (SCIB1 and KEYTRUDA) across multiple locations based in the USA and the UK, administered by Ichor's Tri-Grid2 system. The USA arm would be overseen by Keith Flaherty, a well known and eminent oncologist in the USA and internationally. (Also associated with Sloane Kettering a much respected organisation)
The publicity in the USA may have opened the way to US finance, who knows?

Let's hope that TG2 does get FDA approval at some point and the IND can be resubmitted and an equivalent US trail can commence. This will inevitably incur a lengthy delay. So to say "this makes no difference to Scancell" is I'm afraid completely untrue and very misleading.

Inan,

"funny how i explained what "scientifically approved " .... then you change the meaning because you want to disrupt the BB"

Well, you have to ask, does correcting erroneous statements and presenting the facts "disrupt the BB" or merely disrupt someone's private agenda?

So allow me to present the facts, the unadulterated truth. From the RNS 20th May 2019:

"We are delighted to announce this important milestone in our partnership with Cancer Research UK, which moves us one step closer to entering the clinic. This new nanoparticle approach to deliver SCIB2 is expected to achieve results that are as effective as, or even better than, electroporation. We believe SCIB2 has the potential to provide a much-needed treatment option for patients suffering from a range of common solid tumours including NSCLC, the most frequent cause of cancer death globally."

Perhaps you overlooked the significance of

"This new nanoparticle approach to deliver SCIB2 is EXPECTED to achieve results that are as effective as, or even better than, electroporation."

I have capitalised "EXPECTED" for clarity.
I have also searched the entire RNS and neither the word "scientifically" nor "proven" appear at all let alone together.

So I repeat, your claptrap does not help anyone. I'm sure there are plenty of factual points that can be made to provide some optimism.

Inan,

It really isn't helpful to anyone that you are continuing to post your claptrap....

"... makes no difference to scancell because we have the fall back plan "scientifically approved" ie CRUK and Scancells scientist have successfully adopted the Nanoparticle. delivery system."
There is absolutely NOTHING "scientifically approved" YET!
There are PLANS to use nanoparticle at the instigation of CRUK. As yet, we do not know if this has started and we are years away from being able to say "scientifically PROVEN", this is what the trial is for.

"I will stress this is a "device specific " issue "
So what? It has a direct impact on Scancell.

"This is not a Scancell issue"
It most patently IS!

TF,
"I wonder what Martin Dibble our Non-Exec will have to say and what his attitude is ? "

I'm sure M Diggle was fully briefed on the reality of the situation BEFORE he invested the £3.9M and accepted a place on the board.

Does anyone think there is a possibility of some US patients getting on the UK trial?

"Inan - I'm guessing you'll have a long wait for any reply using scientific facts to try to counter your post."

Here's a scientific fact.....
"Scancell CAN fail"
I'm not saying it will, nor am I saying it is likely, just saying that the above is scientifically and linguistically correct.
So what does saying the opposite make it?

Inan,

My request was simply that you make your points more accurate and clear for the benefit of all without possible confusion.
It wasn't an invitation for you to repeat the error. I won't engage further on this, the ball is in your court and I await with interest your future posts.

Inan,
Can I politely suggest you make it clearer what is a direct quote (cut and paste), your own interpretation on the science and your opinion. When you put the link at the bottom, some might think the whole post is from an academic paper. I’ve known you long enough to spot the difference but less experienced could be mislead.

Particularly dangerous is the statement “Scancell can not fail”. This is not true, it might have been better to say:
“In my opinion, the science behind Scancell is unlikely to fail”.
This makes clear you are expressing an opinion and not stating a fact or even quoting from the link posted.
As I said, this is a polite request. I believe we may have something special here and truly hope we achieve both medical and financial success.

Stakis, well done you. You are in a lucky minority of holders with the option of taking a profit.

Stakis,
“Profit taking”
Are you having a laugh?

Balerno,
Ok, I get what you mean now.
As others have pointed out, the figures can be confusing.
My earlier point was about the SCIB1/keytruda combo rather than on it’s own.

Morning Balerno, All,
Yes you do seem to have missed something: The trial has not yet started and we have no data yet that could be used to assess how successful it is.
Obviously, The trials not starting is a source of frustration and disappointment but “failure”?

Chester,
Very brave commuting to a “max of 6 weeks”
If it doesn’t happen, that’s the end of your cult lol.

Good points ratty.
ditto.

Ray, nothing unethical about using lottery funds for the saving of human life. If someone else happened to have the winning numbers they would still get a good amount of money.

Which begs the question, why didn't he make a note of the winning euro millions lottery ticket, come back, buy one and fund cancel until 2025? Or has he already been there and discovered it's not necessary?

That's an interesting theory. He went forward to May 2020 to see the trials start, went back 3-13 weeks (with proactive) and said, truthfully, the trials are set to start in the "coming weeks". He then gets back to real time and wonders what all the fuss is about!

C7, yes, 6 weeks falls within the range so you are within your rights to preach 6 weeks. Then, if it doesn't happen you can preach any other value up to 13 weeks. It pays to keep your options open.
If it doesn't happen in 13 weeks, you need to revise the interpretation lol!

Sorry, had = hat.
Problem translating the original Aramaic text.

C7, I too would be happy with that sequence. Any news in any sequence would be welcome right now.

Having spent 40 years in an apocalyptic cult, I am quite familiar with the rational behind putting specific time scales to vague time references, for example the book of Daniel “time, times and half a time”

So, with my apocalyptic cult had on, here’s my take on “coming weeks”

It has to be a minimum of 3 weeks. Technically, 2, would warrant plural “weeks” but less than 3 would probably be referred to as “days”.
Similarly, if it was going to be more than 3 months, he would have said months not weeks.
Conclusion: weeks obviously refers to a time period of 3 to 13 weeks.