Member Info for Scinv_temp

*they did not want to use molecular biomarkers for stratification because "the market was too small" and when I saw they couldn't supply enough drug to the US run trial which did have molecular phenotyping despite RM saying months before that he had millions of doses available to save patients. This was all too obviois before the sprinter results.

I gave up and warned everyone when I realised they did not

I was right before all of you Doc. And the hard truth is you were part of the happy clappy band for time. And by the way, pmj did more damage than all the people you mentioned combine

(This IS goodbye IF my previous comment remains in place)

I see you had ny comment on how it actually works deleted. A behaviour all too familiar from people who don't care about facts. Bermuda is either not familiar with how this works (therefore he mislead you about being an expert) or he is an expert and has an agenda. You decide.

Read below

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8183261/

And the general guidelines from NCI (note the .gov in the link before you say anything silly)

https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/docs/quickrcst.doc

This is what I wrote previously

Scinv_temp

Posts: 1,207

Price: 9.65

No Opinion

RE: Morning10 Jun 2024 08:52

4.5. Frequency of tumour re-evaluation

Frequency of tumour re-evaluation while on treatment should be protocol specific and adapted to the type and sche- dule of treatment. However, in the context of phase II studies where the beneficial effect of therapy is not known, follow-up every 6–8 weeks (timed to coincide with the end of a cycle) is reasonable.

[...]

Recist 1.1 guidelines

https://project.eortc.org/recist/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/03/RECISTGuidelines.pdf

If you read the paper that Bermuda posted they report from the phase 1 part, not the phase 2. In addition, ORR is not in the primary or the secondary outcome of the study but in the "other outcomes" which are exploratory.

Isn't funny that Bermuda only lets you reply to me but he never does himself and also refuses to admit that he has nothing to do with biomedical sciences and that he is in fact a finance person?

Keep it up guys, after all Bermuda agrees 100% with you. He might even one up you with a nice prose.

Keep it up guys, after all Bermuda agrees 100% with you. He might even one uo you with a nice prose.

*would not be able to afford

He only said that he wpuld be able to afford it if somehow it did not go well. That is 100% a healthy way to think about investments, don't invest what you cannot afford to lose. The truth is you are absolutely DISGUSTING.

And the ORR became Best Overall Response, 2 distinct things under recist 1.1 guidelines. BOR is the best response achieved while patient on treatment while ORR is simply the reaponse at any given point.

And now they are only showing target lesions, though they should indicate if new lessions are present with an asterisk.

Yet another difference in what they present in writing and what Lindy says. 27 patients in May became 24 in June

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

OK then, can you explain this?

"I’d assume 7 months is also significant because as was suggested yesterday that’s been negotiated by Sclp to put pressure on exchange of the option deal). It’s a put up or go away initial £1m fee."

After all, you wrote it

The "True" was for Falsedawn. You are obviously ignorant.

Can you explain how the below works, or are you just typing random words on the keyboard?

"that’s been negotiated by Sclp to put pressure on exchange of the option deal"

True.

Learn what. What you posted ia wrong.

Data is evaluated and deal structure is agreed prior to research licence. Then there is a series of go/no go decisions starting with partner doing their own experiments for 7 months and at the end of that period deciding to move forward or not. At that point the actual commercial licence kicks in with additional go/no go (itied to exit clauses) decisions and milestones as pre agreed.

Ah those were the days. If only any of that was relevant to the shareholders, this would be a great BB🤣

You haven't seen me because there has been no presentation for 8 months and I could not go to the AGM. How does that mean that the CEO did not mess up AGAIN another chance to communicate properly with investors?

I don't believe you because it shows. You don't believe me because how would you know. You can't even structure a logical argument with what you do know.

*fix

I have researched MOST diligently the ongoing developments, and I have the actual experience, knowledge and training to do so.

Are you saying the ceo did not say recently that scib recruitment has been slow because of failed screening? Or are you saying that what she just said about patients that were eligible for scib1 were simply waiting for iscib1+?

I'm sorry but your unfortunate circumastances do not give you the right to critisise ne with nonsense.