Member Info for TorquayFan

ONW in reply to Katnick elsewhere . . .

''Calculus Capital 49,844,165 12.85% as of 6th March this year.''

Can't recall - has that come down lately ? Anyone ? Thanks.

Morning C7. Re codes and MM games, not just 'abuse, derision and even anger' C7 but polite disagreement too. Glad to see you are open minded about it.

In your 18.47, ''Chippers . . . . . . . was in reality the man who took over the helm at a time when in retrospect Superglue seemed the only option.'' Care to elucidate?

GLA

A lucky escape for Scancell ? (already hit by City Financial unloading).

''This week’s news has been dominated by the downfall of ‘rock star’ investment manager Neil Woodford, who has made his name by championing many businesses in UK biotech. Woodford has stopped money going in or out of his Woodford Equity Income Fund after a run where an increasing number of investors want their money back after losing confidence.

He took the decision while he sells off illiquid and unquoted stocks, which in many cases could be from the biotech sector. Woodford has said that he wants to get rid of all his illiquid and unquoted stocks, and he will have to sell these investments at a cut-down price.''

https://pharmaphorum.com/top-stories/woodfords-woes-could-cause-biotech-fire-sale/?

Just a thought for the weekend - at least Scancell won't be affected by a 'Woodford' sell off !

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/woodfords-woes-could-cause-biotech-fire-sale/?

More from the DT :-

''Other perhaps than journalism, few professions are quite as backbiting as so-called “active fund management” - the business of stock picking on behalf of investors in the hope of delivering superior returns. The degree of schadenfreude felt at the demise of Neil Woodford, the one time star fund manager behind the catastrophe of the Woodford Equity Income fund, has therefore been off the scale. Arrogant, greedy and for a long time lucky, Woodford used to inspire jealousy, criticism and resentment in equal measure among his peers. But now, gloriously, he has met his comeuppance. There is some justice in the world after all.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/07/neil-woodfords-story-hubris-may-yet-end-disaster-liquidation/

I also read somewhere about general concerns being expressed by Mark Carney, that many funds with open demand for withdrawals may be at risk . . . (can't find it).

Nice weekend . . .

As I posted, ''the FT piece was a nice bit of PR - let's hope it bounces around but we'll see ?''

You say ''PR has and will click into gear now'' - I hope you are right.

Thanks again DA.

You see I do read your posts. Re. your kind mention 19.55 about my earlier comment, 'It doesn't help to read TF's comments like ""still no news" from events'' etc. it's just that I remember over the years you are motivated and optimistic about these events and that's OK. Myself I don't expect so much. Was just a casual thought.

BTW Richard G Dawson was IMO quite right in his comments on this subject and others - we've not heard from him in a long while. (His attempt to create a conflict free zone on ADVFN didn't progress much).

Anyway, the FT piece was a nice bit of PR - let's hope it bounces around but we'll see ?

Wish you a nice weekend.

Thanks for that link DA - well spotted - very nice one ! Let's hope the piece gets some more airing this weekend.
Thanks for the print C7.

Good luck today C7 - I guess you've not been cheered up by the 'Hazard' news . . . Never mind - CFC have an army of loanees to call upon.

Nothing from the recent meet-ups at Philly. Yet. ATB

The 'Filter' tab is 3rd in the row of tabs just under the share price.

Just noting, 'He' does have opinions - that's the problem.

BoD have a history of acting early on funding so I too am surprised that we've heard nothing yet. You mention the possibility of a 'shareholder friendly' announcement - let's hope so. We could certainly do with some blue !

Thanks for your 10.53 yesterday about SCIB1. Given the continuing delays re. FDA approval of the SCIB1 Combo trial in the USA, do you think Scancell should submit another application for the trial using nanovesicle delivery - run the 2 applications in parallel. Whichever approval comes first then off we go.

Obviously this has cost implications but Scancell need data and the delay in the application involving Ichor delivery has taken a very long time so far . . . I wonder if this decision should have been taken as soon as the nanovesicle option was identified. I guess it's not that simple but nearly a year on . . . .

GLA

Chester I certainly agree with you that about those RW posts, Parts1 - 4. Excellent. I posted at the time to congratulate RW. But re. CH 'keeping the wheels turning', just MO but it is hard to make very much of thatat all !

C7 Re Oncimmune, thanks for that. Re. your 'compared to none' theme, I stand 100% by para 2 of my 07.42 but will say no more. A prolonged scrap on the point would do you, me or the BB no good. at all.

Anyway where's that blue ? This SP seems anchored atm.

Hi C7 - I agree there is a change of gear. But that CH response failed to claim as much and it seems to me we learnt little.

CH's job is to build the Company and make a return for Investors - I'd like CH to get on with that and then the relationships with Investors will be just fine. As for your 'guarantee' that 'compared to none' contact gives you insights then I'd like to know what those insights are. You should be careful not to put CH in a difficult position with such comment.

We have fundamental disagreement on this. Never mind. Off to a sports day, in the rain, I ask you! BFN

Well spotted C7 - hope to read more from the Tech Dept later about how this might help SCIB progress.
Re the 2017 link, I wonder if Scancell are still involved ?

I didn't see this comment from CH as being encouraging - it's not much more positive than 'keeping the lights on' and I count myself among the SCLP optimists ! A comment about a change of gear or something like that would have been interesting.

And C7 03.30 re. 'the odd compliment, words of support and encouragement for an upcoming event are very well received and as PIs we have a right to ask for clarification on certain issues.'' Well of course the odd compliment is always better received than anger at the BoD but it's largely irrelevant given these Guys are experienced at this level. Asking for clarification on certain issues is fair enough I guess, but I hope CH already has a towering workload and myself would hesitate to distract him to learn as little as - he's 'keeping the wheels turning'.

Just to clarify the other view as you mention it. And more blue please ! ATB

. . . is closed to redemptions after outflows hit £10m a day. Just recalling how it was often mooted here on LSE how an investment from NW would be helpful. Maybe 'we' had a lucky escape !

''Pressure is mounting on veteran fund manager Neil Woodford after shares in his flagship equity income fund were suspended following sustained outflows over the past month, leaving fund investors unable to sell down their stakes. Link Fund Solutions, an authorised corporate director, said the suspension was aimed at “protecting” fund investors following “an increased level of redemptions”. The Woodford equity income fund now has about £3.7bn of assets under management compared to a peak of £10.2bn just two years ago.''

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/03/neil-woodford-fund-closed-redemptions-outflows-hit-10m-day/

Room for improvement indeed - but the 5.825% are those responders achieving 5 year survival having been amongst the 25% who could respond to Keytruda at all ? My brain 'urts !

Thanks - I'm wondering if your sub 1% result was my 5.8% ? Surely it's a simple 23.3% of 25% Can you redo your sum to check ? Whatever, $10 billion sales is impressive but - come on SCIBS - what can you do ? ATB

Your 01.11. That's OK. Sorry to hear you are disappointed with the op and I guess you need to be calm. TCOY and keep punching of course.

It's confusing ? Inan says Keytruda helps 5.8% of total Patients (23.3% of a 25% sector).

Crumbs 17.37 - ''Nearly a quarter (23.3%) of advanced lung cancer patients who received Keytruda were alive after five years compared to 5% before checkpoints were around.''

So now we have 5.8% of total Patients surviving 5 years with Keytruda compared to 5% of total Patients before CI ? Keytruda needs help !

Again 17.37, ''Obviously, 23.3% is far better than 5%''. Yes but not by much ? Because 23.3% of 25% is 5.8% of total compared to 5% of total - (or is the 5% not of total but % of those that would have been treated with CI had CI then existed?

Then Crumbs 19.28 - ''So it means less than 1% of all late-stage lung cancer patients (as only 25% are suitable) survive beyond 5 years after being treated by Keytruda?''. Where's that 1% come from.

It's confusing. I'm not being picky - just needs clarifying if we can. Thanks.