RE: Big Al’s sneaky clues continue….09 Jun 2022 21:07
This was a discussion mate. No insults were thrown, no abuse given. However, if you think you couldn't have a discussion, is probably just because you didn't find agreement in your opinion and were not able to provide examples of previous JDs as I kindly asked.
You say you're tired, but I'm pretty sure you'll still be here tomorrow and the day after??
You keep calling it marketing. It isn't. This is recruitment for people in the field far more in touch with the industry than us. They would be able to recognise if it was BS or not.
There are people in the know that are advised of news. If you think US at the bottom of the food chain will be advised of things first, you haven't understood AIM.
RE: Big Al’s sneaky clues continue….09 Jun 2022 20:40
Sensitive? I just call it a discussion. Are you able to show me a previous JD where they mentioned this, about activating only in the tumour? I think if you can show this, your case stands and you've got a point here mate.
RE: Big Al’s sneaky clues continue….09 Jun 2022 20:31
No arguing here. I just find it weird that after nearly a year of clinical trials, they only mention that it activates in the tumour now. Surely as it's pre clinical data, they could have mentioned it in all their previous job descriptions too right?
Balance doesn't mean going against the obvious. With the data they have on the trial, you can't just say things like this. You either call them liars (stating that it activates in pre clinical while it doesn't in patients) or you agree with them. Simple as
RE: Big Al’s sneaky clues continue….09 Jun 2022 19:59
I think you're assuming it's pre clinical, as that was never mentioned. To shareholders they need to provide an in depth package of information that has been cross checked by the relevant boards/ people. Until then, they are restricted with what they can say. Unofficially, they can say whatever they want. If you think about it, it's nonsensical to refer to pre clinical data when they have access to weekly updates and know exactly what's going on. If the trial wasn't working well, do you reckon they would even bother mentioning that it only activates in tumour pre clinical or not???????
RE: Big Al’s sneaky clues continue….09 Jun 2022 19:42
Considering that in the previous sentence they talk about clinical trial, it doesn't make much sense to then refer to pre clinical data. If that was the case, they would have clearly said "pre clinical" to remove any doubt