Member Info for RuckRover

“yes but great science makes it easy to arrange funding ...”

Personally, I wouldn’t say Scancell have found funding easy. I guess anyone can arrange funding of a small percentage of market capitalisation at a big discount to the going rate.

The lower the SP drops and hence the market cap, the HARDER it becomes to raise a significant amount of funding at a sensible price. I totally agree with crumbs, it is results (from trials) we need.

Yes, I think it’s all about word usage. Some people apply a strict approach to word meaning (boardering on pedantic), others are more flexible (perhaps sloppy) in their usage. The main thing is to understand what people mean.

Wild,
Thanks. Looks like approval in the US is extremely likely.

Klepto,
Yes, I realised my error just after I submitted. Oh for an edit button!
I may yet be right about H2, I hope not though.

Inan,

"why are you debating using Bermudas posts from ADFVN .... ? "

Sorry, hasn't anyone else posted from another board before (especially boom's) ?
I will run it by the BB police next time!

RE. your 20011, I think ONW is correct and well worth you having another listen to the recording of the AGM if you have it handy. The issue is in relation to the use of the Trigrid device in administration of SCIB1 - not the device per se. The exact words used were:-

'There's nothing wrong with the device, the device is fit for purpose. It's the data supporting the utility of the device for the delivery of SCIB1 that's the issue'

The FDA aren't going to just accept that the Ichor device is designed to deliver DNA vaccines therefore it all must be OK. They'll want to see procedures, processes, data etc. to show that the device delivers the expected dose of SCIB1 in the expected way, and that delivery is consistent and safe.

I knew that when submitting their IND, Scancell had to cross reference Ichor's master file which had already been accepted by a different division of the FDA. However, It hadn't clicked that the responses to the FDA's queries and the O/S requirements obviously also need to be sent to the different divisions. This means that Scancell will need to wait until Ichor have sent all O/S info. to the CDRH (I think) before they can send in their responses and request clearance of IND from the CBER.

Easy with hindsight but wish they'd just used the old device - we'd be discussing the results now.

Inan,

There are just 30 days left in H1 2019. As at this late stage we have no word from the FDA I would say that a delay to at least H2 2019 is "inevitable".

Inan,
Many thanks for asking the question and posting the answer, much appreciated.

I wish you would stop the outrageous claims like “approval is inevitable”. One thing we all should have learned from past history is that NOTHING is “inevitable”. Not knowing what the issues are, we are not even in a position to say approval is “likely”.

Inan:
“Its like backing Intel or microsoft .... in 1980 .. who would have thought !! ”

It’s an interesting analogy. Not many people would have backed intel or Microsoft in the early days of personal computing. IBM was the company that bought the PC to the masses. They had a shortlist on chip manufacturers and o/s providers. Intel was number 3 on their list of chips and Microsoft was number 3 on their list of OS providers.

Inan,

please explain this seeming contradiction:

"Scancell is not in charge of the SP"

"the SP reacts to Scancell not the other way round"

So the wheels react to my steering wheel but I'm not driving?

Inan,

"Scancell is not in Charge of the SP its ridiculous to post"

Ultimately, it is the actions of the company (or lack thereof) that influences the SP. Can anyone honestly say there is NOTHING they could have done differently that MAY have led to a higher support? Timing of news, wording of news not to mention good management and governance. I not necessarily saying they have been bad at these, just that they could do better.

Note, I didn't initiate a post slagging off the company - merely expressing a reason why it might not be a good idea for directors to be snapping up shares at 7p when LTHs have paid significantly more than this. I wouldn't be particularly impressed for one!

"Just maybe ;)"

well let's hope so!

George,
My thoughts:
1) As crumbs alluded to, if they are in possession of price sensitive information not in the public domain yet they would be barred from buying.

2) Having let the sp drop to this low level, it would not seem appropriate that they were "cashing in" on their failure.

Ray,

are those the cleaners that bug offices to get inside information?

bob, haven't a clue but not complaining!

maybe someone got spooked by getting wind of the auditor tender process, sold out, and now buying back now it has been resolved?

iPad, my losses are in an ISA :(

Gun, I don't think it is pre-occupation with VAL, more annoyance of infiltration of this board by VAL holders. However, it works both ways!

For the record I hold VAL as well as SCLP but I never mention VAL on this board. Oops, just did!

C7, I was rather disappointed at such a non-rns this morning, but very happy to see blue!

I know you have withdrawn your question but as a "genuine and sincere" poster, let me respond to, but not necessarily answer, your question.

Rock bottom would be 0p. None of us have been able to call it so far, none of us expected sub 7p. If you had asked me a year ago, I would have said 12p.

I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. What you need to assess is the potential top price. As SCLP have multiple drugs in the pipeline, there are several chances of success. It only needs one of these to show promise in trials for the sp to leap from where it is today. Suppose it makes 60p. Does it matter whether you buy in at 4p/5p/6p or 7p?

Buyonfear, congratulations on the purchase and welcome to the bb.