Member Info for RuckRover

Crumbs panda cars,

Agree, it is oversold. What ceases to amaze me is why people were buying at 12p a few weeks back and why people are selling around 8p today!!

Bob bust, they still need fda approval for a UK trial don’t they?

Da, nothing surprises me here anymore. 8p definitely “on the cards”. Not expecting any good news, I think it is a case of getting all the bad news out of the way before the agm.

Konar, an apology, are you kidding? Never mind goalposts moving, the game could change to tiddlywinks and the sp sub 1p and you still won’t get an apology. Imo

Ray, I’ve always been bullish. You be both bullish AND realistic. I think 20x is realistic and quite conservative.
Your £4B valuation would need a 100 bagger, £10 per share. Has been muted in the past but not for some time. I’ll settle for 20x thank you.

TF, I did say 10x "for starters". I'd probably settle for that, take out a bit of cash for the pension fund!

When you consider all the trials past/present/future, the trial and pre-clinical data to date, the 3 (possibly more?) platforms, the changing sentiment toward immuno-oncology AND factoring in risks, fund-raising, dilution etc - this could easily be a 20 bagger.

Not saying, tomorrow, next week or anytime soon but 20x - easy! IMHO, DYOR

Well the SP 10x higher would be a start.
Hope you actually meant to put bigger than Pfizer and not bigger than a pizza.

Crumb, I guess we should consider ourselves lucky then, no change on no news and no volume. Maybe that will change in the next 7 days?

Ratty, I agree with VanVan comments, your observations and conclusions are impeccable.

There are a number of recurring phrases: if not when; only a matter of time; tick tick etc

I think all long term holders are very optimistic of success, it’s just taking longer than many of us thought or hoped for.
There’s also a saying: Time is money! Dyor.

TF, it was an apology to Wild and C7 not an invitation to reopen a topic we already debated to death.
But thanks for pointing out that I didn’t single out Wild

If I have inadvertently demeaned wild I apoologise, that was never my intention.

For the record, I think Wild is both knowledgeable and polite in equal measure. Keep it up Wild.

Me: I cut myself, where's plaster?

Missus: it's In't tin

(looks in tin)
Me: T'int in't tin

"why are we going down this multiple bonding route ?"

Ray asked (14:16)

C7, do you know the last time we had this sort of volume?

Ray, I did manage to find this on line:

Can antigens have more than one epitope?

Because an antigen can have multiple different epitopes, a number of antibodies can bind to the protein. When two or more antigen binding sites are identical, an antibody can form a stronger bond with the antigen than if only one of the antibody's sites is bound.

Ray,
That would really depend on whether a single cancer cell could express 3 different epitopes. I don't know if that is possible.

It may well be ridiculous and trivial to you, but to others it may well be important. There is a credibility issue here. Someone made a claim and I refuted it. As it pans out, most admit not knowing much and NOONE has claimed knowledge of half the science. I think my point is proved.

Why is this important? Consider this:
You don't need to be an expert in a subject to masquerade as one. You just need a tiny bit more knowledge than those you are trying to impress.

I'll leave it there with that thought.

Wild, yes of course I know the link! I was just a bit curious why an article that doesn't mention Scancell makes you want to buy Scancell. I guess your risk reward answer is fair enough. Perhaps I should read the article lol!

Morning Wild,

Genuine question:
No mention of Scancell in the article, why does this make you buy Scancell and not Genentech?

2cvguy, the question was "does anyone here understand half the science"

So far, no one has claimed to.

C7 " don"t think Oncologists know much more than what their chosen field requires"

Exactly right, which sort of backs up what I am trying to say.

This started with smpunter admitting yesterday the he doesn't understand half the science.
I then said, don't worry, no one here understands half the science!

TF then got involved claiming there were poster here who DO understand 50% of the science, which of course is ludicrous. I guess your oncologist won't understand half the science (oncology in general) but hopefully 95% in his specialist area.

It was a casual, throwaway comment. At least Bermuda has spotted the flaw in trying to numerate it - you don't know what you don't know.

He also quite sensibly that each one gathers a level of knowledge to fit their own investment needs. Thanks Bermuda!