FT article/PR7 Jun 2019 20:21
If you were to quickly skim over the FT article it actually comes across a tad negative i.e. mention the 64% SP drop etc, you have to read it properly to appreciate the good (i.e. exceptional) bits in it IMO. Anyway I occasionally read the posts on ADVFN, to get some balance, they seem as overly negative as we on LSE are overly positive (IMO). But i digress, point i wanted to make was that it looks like Panama7 like picked up on my FT post/sclp tweet, and he makes a greatpoint (IMO), hope he doesn't mid me quoting him
"...The first bit of coverage we have had in ages and Holloway doesn't bother to mention the 30 odd patients still alive after 5 years. Talk about an own goal, the perfect opportunity to shout some positive news from the rooftops."
Why wasn't the 5 year survival mentioned in the quote by Cliff Holloway, in fact why isn't this Scancells calling card? - it should be on the front page of the website, everyone should know about this IMO.
You have to dig deep IMO to get to astonishingly good science that Scancell has (this article is again a a great example), which should not be the case, it should be obvious and clear. Yes, I get the world of science/oncology/pharma/research/academia moves in rarefied circles, but hype it up because it deserves/earns the hype. Who knows might catch a glimpse...someone from the Sean Parker Foundation or maybe even the Bill gates Foundation. This goes back to my constant complaint that this is company is absolutely hopeless at PR and promotion... it's as bad at PR as it is amazing as it is with the science.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
