Member Info for TorquayFan

Hi. On my screen, your SCLP posts before 16th April 2018 are deleted from your history ? That's weird. BTW - I have chatted to other posters about 'impatience' - (I feel it too unfortunately).

Yawns or not - it's a fact that a while ago you stated that you were 'angry' with RG over time lines - even endorsing a tough admonition from another Poster. It would be very manipulative for you to appeal to Admin !

RW - as C7 was defending his confidence level in SCLP I was simply noting that I for one, never doubted it.

C7 you post - ''any posts from me criticising news flow are not to be taken as no longer confident''. Now, even when you were posting some time ago about your 'anger' with RG about newsflow, I never for one minute thought that you were losing confidence at all.

RP's 13.04 says some more about the time the work is taking and as he says, ''We do need to be patient''. (But RP doesn't explain how to acquire that skill).

GLA

Tks Inan for your 12.49 & 13.02 in response to mine about the Scancell workload. Most interesting as always. ATB

''Patience is wearing very thin here, especially with the lack of positive PR.''

Keiny the 'impatience' is natural enough - it's been a long wait indeed for LTH. This point comes up repeatedly and is usually answered well - for e.g. see Inan's 12.36 reply to C7. Any suggestion that the BoD is letting us down in any way at all is off the mark IMO. But I get it . . .

My own thought train is that the science expanded massively and that has inevitably put the Scancell project into a different order of magnitude and as a result, maybe progress in any one direction has slowed.

Regarding PR I agree the drum needs banging more effectively when we DO have news . . .
Roll on the day !

ATB and GLA

If you don't like it, maybe, don't read it. Simple.

As for the HM line - it's just silly. Any 'differing' at all can be so characterised. At least I have a point to make when I do grumble.

Btw, 'I think' is not 'telling' ?

Noting that for some reason you are interested enough to perpetuate the issue.

Hope you enjoy your breakfast. No news then GGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

With all due respect, I think that if you leave C7 to deal with his own problems he'll be OK - he's big enough and ugly enough to look after himself. RW give it a rest and Barbf, as for the likes of you, words fail me.

Now lets hope for some news today and a bit of very long overdue BLUE.

GLA

Due to travels, I've just now returned to the BB and following my moderate Wed 07.34 last week in response to some of C7's comments, I must admit to generally reacting badly to what I see as what C7 would phrase as BS.

C7 - there is a new problem of polite posts differing with yours being removed by Admin without comment - I'm not accusing you of stimulating this but it is a step back for the BB.

I really don't think it is a great idea for us all to question the BoD although obviously sometimes it might be helpful. Of course I am not telling anyone what to do but am entitled to give my opinion too. I was quite angry last year with some of C7's claims but will refrain from going over all that.

Each of us on here must be willing to be fairly challenged.

That's it GLA

LOL. I've never been accused of THAT problem before !
The BB is bored already.
It's not just me TF that questions the C7 'style - another poster recently had 9 recs in a comment.
Leave it. BB is bored. No RNS I see. I'm really off now.

If you don't know what this is about, you might be best to leave it alone ?
ATB

Thanks Ivy. I was myself hoping CH would be too busy doing mega deals to provide such a service to PI. Whilst it's good to see the answers, if a slippage in the trials was on the cards, CH would not be free to say so really would he? That would need an RNS ? BFN off to LHR . . .
ATB

Good morning.

So RG referred your email to CH - quite right I suppose. Why did you persist in emailing RG when he has handed Exec. duties over to CH ?

You post : ''As we know Admin do not allow such posts, perfectly understandable as to why''. Well for one, I myself don't know why Admin. do not allow such posts or even why, if you know Admin don't allow it, why you should choose to post it.

If it was a private post to you, should you have posted it here ? If it was not of a private nature, why should Admin remove it ?

Anyway it seems we might have some confirmation that the SCIB1 Combo trial may still be on schedule and thanks for that much at least. However, if the trial might be slipping back, CH would not have been free to tell you would he ?

If we all ask BoD a couple of questions we would be adding to the workload of a very busy BoD and to me, that's not a good idea. IMO best to let CH get on with his work.

When there IS news we'll be given it.

And I hope that the BoD gives that 'news' some 'wellie' when it arrives.

ATB and GLA

WF - I wish your wife well with her risk. Generally for others, a screening test at that price looks a good investment ?

C7 I think Nomlungu is just commenting on the imminent expiry of the GBP149 offer. Thanks for posting that Medscape link from G - Omid Hamid's comments on the costs of Combo treatments etc. highlight a major issue indeed. The budget for cancer treatments must of necessity have a limit and treatments that can work alone or at reasonable cost WILL rule the day ?

Omid Hamid again ? Is he involved with Scancell's network at all ?

Hi. I understand and share your frustration - it is a disappointment to see the H1 timeline slip by.
But 'plummet' is a bit strong ? We'll have to wait until we see, one day, the result of the BoD's efforts. But I'm surprised by the total silence - maybe they're counting the notes !
Nil desperandum - the science will see us through - eventually.
Tick tock . . . . .

No news and no tweets from Scancell . . . .
I think JC and CH might be busy out there ?

BTW thanks Inan and all for the great posts yesterday - helps me keep the faith to see that someone has a grip on the science !

Good luck to them and GL to ALL

Coming back to this, from Ira Mellman . . . .

''3 primary immune profiles: inflamed tumours, immune excluded tumours and immune deserts''.

Inan - if you are around - indications are that Immunobody or Moditope can help in all 3 of these categories ?
Is it possible that both Immunobody and Moditope might be used for the same Patient sometimes ?

RP - yes - it seems Moditope may spell trouble for Pharma and their lucrative 'Checkpoint Inhibitors' in due course.

GLA

I noticed this from G on the other side !

''Ira Mellman - he of Project Blueprint explains in this clip from mid 2017.

"Cancer immunotherapy helps us enhance our immune systems so that they’re able to fight cancer, enabling our bodies’ T-cell armies to attack the tumour microenvironment. In support of our immunotherapy efforts, Roche’s research and development team managed to separate the 200+ known cancer types into 3 primary immune profiles: inflamed tumours, immune excluded tumours and immune deserts. Understanding these profiles helps us develop different treatment strategies that allow us to target each individual’s immune biology.

The cancer immunity cycle is a framework that helps to explain how tumours interact with the human immune system. Listen as Roche Global Head of Cancer Immunotherapy Dan Chen and Vice President of Cancer Immunology Ira Mellman provide simple explanations of immunotherapy and the cancer immunity cycle."

Here's hoping he likes what he's seeing while working with Lindy.''

https://twitter.com/Karen_Yise/status/1010130278411571202

A very helpful post as ever . . .
I enjoyed these words thinking of Scancell : ''3 primary immune profiles: inflamed tumours, immune excluded tumours and immune deserts''.

I think Scancell can help. A holiday contribution so BFN . . .

Quote ''the negative aspects that posting and arguing about the minutiae of the science can have on the vast majority of investors who either don’t understand or need or want to have such knowledge''. No problem Ivy but I take the view that any discussion of the science, even the minutiae, is excellent and won't put off new lookers or old readers. Great to see the Inan/Ray discussion but I'm afraid they lost me early on !! Always enjoy your posts . . . GLA

Inan you are obviously at home with this science and it was good to see you taking Ray through it and your exchanges with BS and WF. Well done and thanks. Ivy's wise words 22.14 console the many, ''Don’t worry if you feel a lot of this is above your head as imo you don’t need to know this level of detail to be fully aware of the compelling science here and have total confidence in the scíentific evidence supportive of Immunobody and Moditope.'' Having Inan, BS and WF etc on team is brilliant. Ray - you are obviously getting there and respect to you - it makes me feel 'thick' to watch your progress. Fascinating BB today. ATB

I have NEVER accused you of lying. NEVER. That's not my style. BTW IMO Inanaco is right - this is not your 'Facebook' page. Back to Father's day then - ATB