Member Info for RuckRover

Morning C7,
I looked for that film, there a number about Eichmann so would appreciate the title and year. I remember my son-in-law recommending a film saying it was one of the best he had ever seen. I had through 3 hours of the most tedious plot only to find out it was the wrong one. Same title but completely different topic!

I’m married to Chelsea fan now so understand the rivalry. Her late husband was a manic Chelsea fan as are her children (now my children as well). I make sure I have a few Chelsea players in my dream team so I can be genuinely pleased when Chelsea score or keep a clean sheet.

The Inanaco Affair (sounds like a movie title!) I’m not trying to change him, I’ve been around long enough to spot futility. Nor do I want to temper him, I worked with many talented individuals over the years and the most successful tend to be the most passionate. We both want Scancell to succeed. I’d be prepared to not make money so long as some cancer cures came out of this. Making money would be nice, be not the be all and end all for me. Not sure where Inan stands on this, perhaps he will enlighten us?

Evening ratty,
Very funny. Even funnier (but not in a humorous way) is how jokes make no logical sense. If one replaced the bulb, they wouldn’t have to cope with darkness would they? So maybe the logical answer is four - four to write the pamphlet. Alternatively the answer could be five - one to change the light bulb and four to write the pamphlet “coping with a temporary episode of darkness while the bulb was being changed”

C7, Evening/morning (whichever comes first)

I will have to look out for that movie, sound just the sort I would like. Have you seen raid on enttebe? I’m talking about the 1977 one, I haven’t seen the 2018 one yet though not desperate to catch it as I have yet to see a remake that is not terrible compared to the original (eg 3.10 to Yuma, Thomas Crown Affair, True Grit, Total Recall, Planet of the Apes). Call me a dinosaur if you like!

Note your comments about the arguments/debates lol.

Q. How many SCLP BB posters does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Three. One to change the bulb, one to argue what wattage to replace it with, how long it will last, how superior the science of the new bulb is, whether the new bulb has the regulatory approval and whether the bulb actually needed replacing in the first place and one to argue darkness is better anyway.

Inan,

"I will leave you to bore the pants off the BB ... "

Can't think why my cut and paste of scientific papers is any more boring than your cut and paste of scientific papers.

"Keytruda is approved .... "
Just checked back through the posts - as I thought, no one has said keytruda is NOT approved.

lol

You might be interested in this paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5342627/

Extract from the above link....

In states of limited nutrients, such as starvation or fasting, T-cell number is low and activated T cells are unable to upregulate glucose metabolism to fuel effector T-cell function, i.e. proliferation and inflammatory cytokine production. This malnutrition-associated immunodeficiency can lead to increased susceptibility to infection while simultaneously offering protection against several forms of autoimmune disease. Conversely, immunometabolic changes in obesity may promote effector T-cell differentiation and inflammatory cytokine production and thereby increase the risk of obesity-associated metabolic diseases. Understanding the relevant cytokines, hormones, signaling pathways, and mechanisms by which nutritional status and adipose tissue communicate to immune cells will hopefully inform treatment of both malnutrition-associated immunodeficiency and obesity-associated inflammation.

Inan,

Excellent tactic, has been employed many times before.
You fail to spot the point of TF's question
When someone else does, you jump in with two feet and make some factually incorrect statements.
Your attempts to prop up the incorrect statements are destroyed by not 1, not 2 but 4 posters.
So you cut and paste your original, questionable relevance reply.
Classic!

I seem to have caught Bermuda's affliction, that of not being able to get the most simplest concept over to you.
Let's try a simple example.

I have two dogs, a chihuahua and a great dane. I give them both the same dose of worming medication. The great dane still has worms and running around like a mad dog, the chihuahua is worm free - but dead!

That was the CONCEPT behind TF's question (and mine subsequently)

Bermuda has given a very comprehensive, polite and factually correct answer. I am happy, and I concede that my concerns were ungrounded.

It does not mean that the CONCEPT (ie dosage to weight ratio) IS THEREFORE NULL AND VOID.

Inan,
"all i can say ....
read bermudas post"

I did, he has been extremely helpful. At least he understood the concern I had and addressed it so I am very grateful to him. Unlike you who failing to appreciate it was a FIXED dose went off on some other crusade.

Inan,

I think you will find it is Bermuda, Wild, TF and I who have corrected YOU!

Your 13:33 yesterday...
"most doctors can work out the maths based on 2mg/kg ... so why would you give a 50kg woman 100kg weight equivalent ? just because she is an adult .. "

The point is it is a FIXED dose as many people have tried to point out to you.
I saw TF's post early this morning and chose not to respond and rub your nose in it further. If only YOU had kept quiet you would have looked slightly less stupid than you already did.

Let's leave it there eh?

Crumbs, thanks for confirming - 200mg FIXED dose for adults.

Inan,
"what affects the SP ? None of the above"

Of course it does. The point being made is that the dose is a fixed amount for adults - 200mg.
This means for small people the dose is relatively high and for large people relatively low.
This could mean that efficacy in small people is higher but side-effects also higher.
In large people, efficacy could be lower but side effects also lower.

Therefore the trial population size demographic will have a potential impact on the efficacy and toxicity results.

Are you trying to tell us that efficacy and toxicity results won't affect the SP?
Have you understood the point that the dose is not a mg per Kg of body weight?

Lol, I actually quite like a salad with my pie(s)

Inan,
"cannot remember seeing a "fat person criteria" ? "

Possibly because under the exclusion criteria they normally say "overweight" or "Obese" or just specify a BMI range.

"Fat person" is a little rude don't you think?

Inan,

"trial criteria is the
"overlap"

Surely mean the cartesian product (keytruda criteria + SCIB1 criterea) rather than "overlap" (only the criteria that are on BOTH)?

Inan,
"most doctors can work out the maths based on 2mg/kg ... so why would you give a 50kg woman 100kg weight equivalent ? just because she is an adult .. "

This post from Bermuda may help you:

Wild,

Not sure whether you read advfn but if so hope you're well. Regarding dosing levels of Keytruda in the SCIB1 trial, when Keytruda was first approved by the FDA, the recommended dose was 2mg per kg of weight. This was changed to a fixed dose of 200mg regardless of weight in 2017 as pharmacokinetics data showed very little difference between the 2. So I don't think it's using a lower paediatric dose, just that Scancell have been using that slide for a long time and haven't updated it!!

TF, that is a very good question. Inan has partly answered it in that he only addresses the efficacy aspect. As he says, you will need sufficient dose to engage the necessary number of t-cells. The number of t-cells in the body is not dependent on weight. In fact, some studies show that being overweight can result in a compromised immune system.

But your point was more about safety I think?
The question is will a smaller person on the fixed dose be more likely to suffer side-effects?
Also, will the efficacy be lower in overweight people?

It will be interesting to see the trial acceptance criteria. I have seen some that disqualify people who are obese.

Morning C7.
A posting marathon for you last night I see! I did see it late last night but too tired to reply adequately.

To clarify my personal story. I lost my wife to colon cancer nearly 7 years ago (we had been married nearly 38 years). By the time of diagnosis, the tunour was large and had breached the colon wall. After the operation, she got pneumonia and lasted only 10 weeks, mosltly spent in intensive care. I had expected her to make some sort of recovery and have perhaps 1 to 5 extra years. Planning the finances, I posted the forms to withdraw funds from a pension. Sadly, she died the next day. When the funds came through I threw them into a number of biotechs involved in cancer treatment. I had previous experience of investment including biotechs so it wasn’t entirely blind. I bought SCLP, VAL, IMM, SAR and a few others that I forget.

You are correct in recalling I sold out on two occasions. My first purchase was 15p. I averaged down as the price fell, buying at 13 and 11. It dropped to 9p and at this point I was down a lot. However, sitting tight I saw the share hit 26p and having not only made up the (paper) losses, was on a good profit. So I sold the lot. I continued to research the company and science and realised the upside was potentially far higher so bought back in. The other time I sold out was following the announcement the drug stocks were out of date. I expected a big fall. In the end, the fall wasn’t that big and recovered quickly. I wasn’t out long, and ended up with a few more shares than I had.

My view on ramping - personally, I don’t see much here. Ramping is manipulation to make a quick profit. The positive comments here are made by LTHs most of which are not interested in a quick profit but bigger, longer term gains. Having said that, I am conscious of different time objects depending on personal circumstances - particularly sensitive to your own. There are many positive posters here that you can have a sensible debate with - wild and crumbs being prime examples.

What we do suffer from is exaggerated expectations and I don’t think this helps anyone. The SP rockets on overblown expectation and plummets on over gloomy outlook. I’d rather the sp had been between 20 and 30 rather than 5 and 65. I do feel for anyone who bought in at 50+.

I agree entirely with pafowler as do you. The BB should be to improve our knowledge through collective thinking. Everyone can contribute to that, I think we can overlook the importance of the human aspect to the knowledge pool.

Wild, enjoyed your 21:31.
Good to highlight the most important thing - people with melanoma in the uk May be lucky enough to have the opportunity of actually surviving.

I think all us investors take the risk of being wrong.

crumbs, they were good questions. Why didn't anyone ask about the FDA hold up? Was there a borad held up saying "Don't ask about the FDA" that we couldn't see?

deadly,
yes it did come from CH's mouth. On the recording the question is at 30 minutes, answer by 31.20