Member Info for TorquayFan

Hi. Posts crossed. I don't think anyone took it seriously Ruck - certainly not WF.
Let's work on 50% then. And decimal places in the right place ! ATB

Hi C7. Yes Ruck posted originally, ''One or two may understand 1% of it.'' Ouch !
And ''TF, if you truly believe that anyone here has a 50% grasp of the science you are completely deluded.''
I reckon my 'delusion' is closer than Ruck's LOL - much closer.

But we will never know because Inan, Berm, WF and 'newcomer' RP for examples are all far too modest to say 'owt themselves. And of course, if they did, they would be then torn apart by the enthusiastic doubters.

I see Berm is approaching 10,000 too and Inan's 30,000 is not too far away !

Anyway - well done the Science team as ever. Nice day all . . .

This tweet - not sure I agree with it altogether but good to see awareness around :-

hTTps://twitter.com/BernardAFox/status/1053558541800407040

Great posts everybody today - WF, Botski, Chester, V V, RP, Hims.

Hope this jolly link works - otherwise - you know where. GLA

Steve that's great news and thanks very much - your recording will prove MOST interesting I'm sure.
If that Guy eats Doritos again, give 'im a good thump ! ATB

1600 T-cells in a cubic millimetre - this stuff is ultra sub microscopic !
I wonder if to attack a tumour you need a higher density than 1600 ? No idea.

I'd be glad to see H'pool promoted with Orient or Wrexham - because next season, my lot want one of those 2 places!

GLA and good to see blue !

Hello WF - well I did say, E and O E and that I was sub 1% on Ruck's science credits !

I posted this 5.02 am on ADVFN but only now on LSE due to LSE access problems.

My second attempt at this sum gave me a similar result anyway being just 1000 times higher LOL. It goes like this in the tiny mind . . . .

Apparently www tells me that there's 1 million mm3 per litre (blood or water).
So based on 5 litres, that's now just 8,000,000,000 or 8 billion (not 8 million) T-cells needed in the average person to reach density of 1600 T-cells per mm3.

8 billion T-cells needed in the total of about 70 TRILLION in a human - a small task force indeed . . .

Anyway, mind boggling clever stuff Prof. Lindy !! And mind boggling numbers . . . .

(Just read your numbers and IMO we're close enough now).

And bigger quiet btw M8. ATB

Post rec - to generate 500-1600 T-cells per mm3 in a Patient's blood, or more, is the target ?

One to check - I make that a target of around 8,000,000 T-cells or more required at 1600 per mm3 ?

That's a lotta T-cells - take a bow Prof. Lindy !!

E and O E.

Hyms - I'm with Matt on this one - SP at 9.85 pence with this science on board - patents and some trials in hand ! Maybe not shout about it but at least have some effective highlighting of where we are and what it means market wise, potentially. The MCap of other Companies with much less in hand, dwarfs Scancell's Mcap - and we had a full time Exec in the USA for 12 months or more . . . .

Shake it up I say ! ATB

C7 - lose the bitterness. I'll defend every word I ever posted to you. Get some rest and take care. R

You posted - ''TF then got involved claiming there were poster here who DO understand 50% of the science, which of course is ludicrous.'' Gazza it's a BB and I made a reasonable and moderate suggestion. Why is 50% ludicrous anyway ?

You referred to my post Wed 14.41 - but you didn't consider this moderation I included about the 50% - ''But that's just a surmise too !'' I made a fairly balanced guess that's all and no more was claimed by me. 50% - I'd still go with that.

2cvGuy - yep it's irritating. Sorry for that. Good night all . . .

You posted, ''I noticed you said "TF you are deluded", yes I had to control myself then!!!''

Would you like to explain that further ? Or is that the demonising ?

TCOY

Your 09.51. '' I have checked the proactive events''. Of course you did !

However, in 4 enquiries somewhere else, you couldn't substantiate at all , but after WigWammer Wed 19.13, posted this:- ''July 2016 - with fund raising May 2017 ie 10 months later. July 2017 - with fund raising April 2018 ie 9 months later.. Conclusion - the recent history of proactive presentations does not suggest that a cash raise is imminent ''

And then you had researched it ? LOL LOL

Your 09.58 ''No one knows what they don't know, which is why no one can claim 100%''.
Well - here's one who knows - ''I'm taking Prof. Lindy NOW at 100% as the measure. OK''.

All good fun ...

2nd draft due to difficulty getting into LSE !

Ruck - re. your double 08.06 - first para - myself I'm taking Prof. Lindy NOW at 100% as the measure. OK ? And, I would have been the first to weigh in with a sub 1% claim, (but for LSE access). I doubt Berm and Inan will respond to your 'Challenge' - they're far too modest. I stand by my first guesses on this. End.

Ivy - I think you are right - the Meet is probably part of the ProActive deal and the day after the AGM is an opportune time to do some smoothing. Of course I really hope as does C7, that there is something more exciting to learn more about !

WW - thanks an excellent post and many recs. Neatly puts to bed the idea that the 'Meet' must be a prelude to a 'raise' as mischievously suggested.

Matt - you posted - '' I truly believe this can and should be be multiples in the pounds''. Well done Sir. You are brave !
You've nailed your colours to the mast OK and why not? Look at the MCaps around for similar Companies.

C7 - I saw your reminder about ESMO. Do you know if Scancell have any formal attendance ?

GLA

Gazza re. ''the knowledge''. I'll stand by my original post - ''I think we have some respected Posters here who are well above 50% or nearly there. But that's just a surmise too ! The number of Folks in the World with 100% might be, in the hundreds ? Who knows ?''

Does that balanced guess deserve this - ''you are completely deluded'' and ''to claim someone can achieve 50% of the knowledge swotting up on a couple of wet afternoons is insulting.'' It's you that's insulting those who have struggled to get through the science. I was going to make the point that researching the science and seeing a way through it when it's been documented many times - are different tasks.

Then I saw that Inan had answered your point decisively enough - ''I understand Einstein theory of Space Time Gazza /Ruck ... but i could never develop the idea''.

That's it exactly. Thanks Inan. So I'll stand by 14.41 as being a balanced enough look at the topic.

Gaz, you are entitled to your opinion, but, as it is impossible for you to estimate - if you don't understand the science 100% yourself - why post that ? Of course, any negativity is GOOD for you.

SMP sub 50% is good. I think we have some respected Posters here who are well well above 50% or nearly there. But that's just a surmise too !

The number of Folks in the World with 100% might be, in the hundreds ? Who knows ?

GLA

Good to see the 'positives' that is . . .

DA - good to see those positives with exclamation marks too ! Thanks.

Just 9.75 pence. BFN

Thank you for the list of 'positives' - it's a long one indeed.
V V - I think you can safely ignore the 'chippy' comments elsewhere - 'twas ever thus.
Good to see those . . . News any day then. GLA

Just MHO but for me it's hard to deduce any real positives about the ProActive meeting - from the evidence in hand at least. Scancell dance through this ProActive stuff regularly but it's never done much good has it ?

9.75 pence - say no more. I would have liked an update on progress OR difficulties with the SCIB1 trial.

Of course, the 'radio silence' may be due to negotiations in hand - or may not. ATB

Re. ProActive you posted 06.43 - ''Was barely able to sleep last night, after learning we are down for the above event.'' I don't understand WHY you were so excited - IF there is serious or exciting news we will learn before or at the AGM. I suppose CH will have more time for more details at ProActive but it's no more important than that.

This is my humble but differing opinion, politely put I hope.

BTW I didn't post at 12.55 (your 09.44) but never mind.

Sorry to hear that you are still struggling with your health problems - a couple of months ago you were quite chirpy in reporting your cancer defiance and that cheered me up. Keep punching . . . (but not me). ATB

''Bristol-Myers Squibb has said its Opdivo immunotherapy has failed to improve on standard of care in patients with small cell lung cancer, who had relapsed following platinum-based chemotherapy.''

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/bms-opdivo-fails-in-small-cell-lung-cancer/