Member Info for Scinv_temp

Why would that be of interest at all?

"The Board has for a long time followed an approach of making announcements only when progress has been both definitive and compelling."

😂😂😂😂

Oh yeah big 20% cost, because of all the profit you'll make? 😂😂😂

New lesions that appeared after the baseline scan. Same goes for the patient that should show stable disease but is shown as PD.

Though in that plot, they should have indicated which patient passed away. Next update will be telling about how professional the new management really is.

And they sent an updated waterfall plot to TD but didn't publish it on their website, sigh...

Hopefully it means we'll get a detailed update/presentation soon.

This is what happens when manahement loses trust. The new management that is now also fronting the communications has to work extra hard to earn it back.

Then why is CellSearch that use EpCAM and other antibodies in 63 studies and Parsortix in 8?

In addition a quick search for oncotype dx shows >40 clinical studies

https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Oncotype%20DX

For CellSearch >60 studies

https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=CellSearch

While for Parsortix, 8 studies

https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=Parsortix

Thanks, it is approved for breast cancer in particular, just like others for different indications

CellMax for CRC CTC detection

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/08/25/2286116/0/en/CellMax-Life-Earns-FDA-Breakthrough-Device-Designation-for-Colon-Cancer-Pre-Cancerous-Adenomas-Screening-Blood-Test.html

CellSearch for Breast, CRC, Prostate

https://www.cellsearchctc.com/about-cellsearch/what-is-cellsearch-ctc-test#:~:text=The%20CELLSEARCH%C2%AE%20CTC%20Test%20is%20a%20simple%2C%20actionable%20blood,circulating%20tumor%20cells%20(CTCs).

Others too like Vortex VT1 and Oncotype DX, while a few others like CytoSort are expected to be approved

https://academic.oup.com/endo/article/165/4/bqae022/7608821

So the question remains I'm afraid

What you need to understand jint is the company itself is ridiculous (including their "asset", which isn't even their discovery), so the only thing ridiculous here is how much money tfg and others have put here.

I've been briefly checking news from this co for years but never really pressed the trigger. Could someone explain (be as technical as you can) why Parsortix is superior vs plain old FACS and/or EpCAM antibodies/chips and in general any of the other platforms out there?

Thank you.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10237083/.

I am a PhD in a relevant area, trained and experienced in drug discovery. You on the other hand are a johnny-come-lately that thinks they know what they are talking about.

*All you are looking to do

If they post here I'll warn them as well. Pure delusion.

That delusional argument is just as useless now as it ever was. More actually, how did tfg investing in the past worked for you so far?

"the risk potential reward ratio is too good to walk away, at 2p, even with the significant dilution. I expect to increase my holding to 1.9m."

It is not good at all. Worse than before actually. Whoever invests here on the basis that this trial will come good is completely delusional. The only trial I would consider investing in is one that takes into account molecular biomarkers properly, but they failed to design such trial. Simply put, it does NOT work the way they are trialing it.

"..the checkpoint inhibitor majors are all successfully pushing ahead with intradermal injectable checkpoints and therefore extending the "cliff edge" patents. "

They never needed scancell to extent anything and the subcutaneous CPIs are about ease of use, which is significant, not patent extensions. To be clear, scancell now doing an intradermal administration of iscib1+ plus is not going to extent their exclusivity period either.

Of course you don't, otherwise you wouldn't post all the time. Duh.

Guarantee? 🤣🤣🤣

The RNS clearly states that the figure is given for illustrative purpose