Member Info for TorquayFan

Knowlesi quickly acknowledged his 14.56 comment "not much buying interest" to be off target and as C7's figures showed, buys were exceeding sells in the last 2 weeks anyway. But however you look at it, there's not enough buying to stop this SP slowly drifting down and that is very disappointing is it not ?

Scancell are no doubt still trying desperately to sign up new trial centres for SCIB1 Combo but no luck with that yet and no Patients dosed either. Ouch !

FWIW my view on funding is the same as last time - Scancell with their usual prudence will act MUCH earlier than we expect. I agree with Ruck's comments and sussing this from Bermuda, "CH was trying to pull that back a bit and qualified JC's statement by saying they should have enough to get to the end of 2020", I'd guess, without an ONW rabbit, IMHO they'll be looking to raise funds May - August next year.

But an ONW rabbit will do the job for me !

Ruck - your last point - the mega-deal does sometimes happen when the science is right (and the data).

Nil desperandum.

It ain't necessarily so Ruck of course - that's simply my opinion - that is, an SCLP share is better value at 5.15 pence now than it was in 2012 at 50 pence. Why ? - much more science is in hand and many patents in the bag as 'mitigations' for the undeniable negatives (and that's at 10% of 2012 price). The share was per se overvalued in 2012 but IMO, a Scancell share looks undervalued now . . .

The market perceived, ( with a ladle of sentiment), that the share was worth 50 pence in 2012 but the value is IMO better now because of more asset backing per penny. However, it's academic - I'm invested at 17 pence. BFN.

More logical or not, an SCLP share is surely better value now than at 50p in 2012 - with much more science around and many patents in the bag as 'mitigations' for the undeniable negatives. I'm sure we'd all settle for a 5.15 pence average - even JC ! However 17 p it is and roll on that day . . .

Correct that was on the 18th - "I won"t be posting here for some time, just wish many all the best here and over the festive season. x" To me and others that implied you wouldn't be posting until after New Year. No such luck eh ?

'It's the recs that hurt'or similar was your comment not mine. And please don't accuse me of lying.

For you to filter me is a great idea C7.
Your Tue 19.05 and others of yours have indeed been removed - calm down. Don't you remember your comments about not posting again until after Christmas and that it was the recs (against you) that hurt ? Take it easy.
I repeat as earlier, "maybe you would not over-react to the merest point made to you, IF you could ever manage to see yourself as just another Poster on the BB."
Leave the bitterness out C7. TCOY and BFN

Your Tuesday 17.05 has been removed. Rightly so. I'd responded to you - "Your 19.05 is poor stuff C7 and your analysis is inaccurate in extremis. It's you that weaved the web you now bemoan."

I noticed the discussion of Inan's comment, 'straight to the bottom line' about the effect of Royalties and I substantially agree with Inan just this once - that's where Royalties go. Of course being involved in a Royalty situation might have other costs, legal, admin and so on, but largely and IMHO, it's OK to describe Royalties in that way. Royalties are a sort of 'marginal income' rather than 'marginal costs' - something extra . . .

However, our dreams should not make us fly, in this respect, 'cos atm we ain't got none have we ? GLA

C7 you are again taking pretence to some sort of higher authority, appealing for civility etc. when it is you, as always, at the centre of incivility and most problems on this BB. I think Crackin's post, with it's 10 recs, has been removed actually, along with your own Tuesday 19.05 which was a long, insulting and ridiculous response to my short and relevant input (again).

If you want to move on, you need to look to yourself first. As a start, maybe you would not over-react to the merest point made to you, IF you could ever manage to see yourself as just another Poster on the BB.

BTW my very short post to you was simply removed as part of the 19.05 thread - whilst not congratulatory it was hardly offensive. But it suited you to condemn me with Crackin. That's nastiness and typical.

I agreed with Crackin's comments.

The company says the first readout from the CheckMate-915 trial showed the combination didn’t improve on PD-1 inhibitor Opdivo (nivolumab) given on its own in patients with high-risk melanoma who had been treated with surgery and whose tumours expressed low levels of the PD-L1 biomarker (less than 1%).
https://pharmaphorum.com/news/bms-opdivo-yervoy-combo-hits-a-snag-in-adjuvant-melanoma/?

Katnick nice to see you posting again and clearly put - "exasperation of the slow progress with the SCIB1 clinical trail muck up." But don't worry, Inan asserts conflictingly, "Ichor will be sorted .. but its Ichor that has to sort it ."

Inan - with your perception of stalls, I'm glad you are not a Pilot ! (Wink) I presume you refer to a one day USA arm here, "Ichor will be sorted .. but its Ichor that has to sort it .." What ?

FTSE - it's definitely off to Ebay for you - sorry about that. Bid GBP 7.50. I'd only add that Prof. Lindy's address to Neo Ag on Friday is a step in the best direction. it's unlike me to laud these things but GLA.

WF - quite like old times on here today . . . .

Yes Inan but I am posting ONLY about Immunobody - NOT the other science at all. Repeat "If you are NOT disappointed with the current stalled progress (IMMUNOBODY), you would IMO be the only one in the Scancell Universe."

Perfectly clear if you read the posts. I think it must be your disappointment with Immunobody's lack of progress that is exercising you LOL. The END.

Read before reply Inan. Immunobody is stalled.
I didn't say the Scancell science was stalled. OK ? Last on this.
The massaman was excellent. ATB

Ouch FTSE - any more of that M8 and we'll stick you on Ebay instead !

But I agree with your concluding sentence.

That's a long reply to a simple question Inan - no suprise there then ! I'm aware of all the science plus stuff, due to much help from you and others.

But to this point "how do you think your 10 year Investment in Immunobody is progressing?

If you are NOT disappointed with the current stalled progress, you would IMO be the only one in the Scancell Universe. So I'll assume that you are, 'disappointed' in that respect.

It's time for Supornthip's home made massaman curry so I'm off. ATB

Bermuda thanks for the manufacturing comments.

The premise in your 08.31 was most interesting and Neo Ag looks very much spot on target for Scancell/Moditope and Prof. Lindy and crikey - that's this Friday. GLA

Bermuda - you post, "the manufacture has been challenging". Noting the words 'has been', does that mean that manufacture is now completed ? Sorry if the answer is already out there somewhere, but I've been up all night dancing after Chester's post.

Thanks C7 - that's good to see.
I wonder why LSE haven't picked that one up ?

Oh Joy ! Thanks for that. Good try - I'm beaming ear to ear now. ATB

Hi. So Crackin is Aimbig ? I remember him but I thought he was before your time.

Your 19.05 is poor stuff C7 and your analysis is inaccurate in extremis. It's you that weaved the web you now bemoan. Glad to see you posting again.