Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Eden LSE:EDEN London Ordinary Share GB0001646941 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 12.10p 11.70p 12.50p 12.10p 12.10p 12.10p 0 08:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Pharmaceuticals & Biotechnology 1.9 -0.8 -0.3 - 25.07

Eden Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4651 to 4669 of 4675 messages
Chat Pages: 187  186  185  184  183  182  181  180  179  178  177  176  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
18/7/2018
13:45
TPI. OK lets stop playing the man as that's a pointless waste of both our time . What's your opinion on Eden Research?
supersonico
18/7/2018
11:27
hTTp://alturl.com/79bkh Endocrine Disrupters: The delays continue, as the EU Commission consults on a new EDC framework
supersonico
18/7/2018
10:00
Your sounding Clumsy and very ill informed TPI and your timing is terrible. Clumsy
supersonico
18/7/2018
07:48
Do some detailed background research on EDEN yourself TPI and you will realise Investing is on to a winner here. Clumsy
supersonico
18/7/2018
07:14
jeez I'm surprised to see investingisatrickygame (2017andonwards over on LSE) is still around given his track record of picking and promoting liquidated companies Strategic Natural Resources New World Oil Xcite Energy Berkeley Mineral Resources however it comes as no surprise to read he is still putting himself forward as the go to 'company liaison officer' for retail shareholders or selling himself as the demigod 'sector expert' I wonder if he gets secretly paid for publicly promoting EDEN to retail investors just like he did for that busted flush SNRP 🤔 yes it never ceases to amaze me with AIM stocks what you can haphazardly stumble upon on the internet when doing some detailed background research leopards and spots 100p soon 🤣
the patriotic irishman
18/7/2018
00:06
Farmers' Pesticides and Cancers: The Escape forwards to Irrefutability (Part One) hTTps://www.europeanscientist.com/fr/opinion/pesticides-et-cancers-chez-les-agriculteurs-la-fuite-en-avant-vers-lirrefutabilite-premiere-partie/ The fact that pesticides cause cancer among farmers is now the subject of a scientific consensus, legally enshrined in the fact that one of them, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, is classified in France as a professional disease. farmers, caused by exposure to pesticides. How many farmers are the victims? Curiously, INSERM, consulted by a French interministerial mission, recently declared itself unable to quantify the number [1]. How is it that we are still there, even for this disease whose link with the agricultural professions is one of the best documented? To understand it, it is instructive to return to the history of research on the health of farmers ... and its progressive drifts! Concerns from retrospective case-control studies Research on the delayed effects of pesticides on farmers took off in the 1970s, following the awareness of the effects of their accumulation in the environment, especially for organochlorine insecticides. Since this was an after-the-fact analysis of the impacts of products that have been used for a long time, the first epidemiological studies on this subject were retrospective case-control studies [2]. This type of survey is known to be potentially affected by Many biases, but as it gives results quickly, it is a normal step to begin to identify a new health problem. These early case-control studies quickly revealed that farmers were overrepresented among the victims of a fairly large number of pathologies, mainly cancers and neuro-vegetative diseases. Unfortunately, these retrospective studies do not accurately calculate the number of excess cases in exposed populations. In addition, it is difficult to reconstruct, sometimes long after, the list of products to which the farmers studied were exposed. Prospective cohorts: reassuring results These first disturbing results have led to the creation of cohorts, that is to say large populations of farmers recruited while still in good health, to measure all the health events affecting them, and to monitor their use. of pesticides. These cohorts enable so-called prospective studies: they are much more expensive than retrospective studies because they require the collection of a huge amount of information, and it takes more than 10 years for them to start producing data. significant results. But they are much more reliable, and they alone can calculate incidences (number of new cases each year) and deaths (number of deaths caused each year) among farmers, and therefore compare them to the general population. The two largest cohorts on this topic are: The AHS (Agricultural Health Study) Cohort in the USA, established in 1993, which monitors the health of approximately 90,000 farmers (pesticide applicators, and their wives) The Agrican cohort in France, created in 2005, is even larger since it recruited around 180,000 people, a very significant sample of the French agricultural population. In addition, the Agrican cohort also has the advantage of including a significant proportion of non-pesticide farmers, which could lend itself to the study of potential confounding factors (ie risk factors). other than pesticides, but also associated with agricultural work). These prospective cohorts finally made it possible to calculate for farmers standardized incidences and mortality, ie compared to those of the general population. These studies should therefore normally be used to calculate the number of excess cases among farmers. For example, a standardized incidence of 1.1 among farmers means that there were 10% more new cases of the disease in excess of them, compared to the usual number of cases in the general population. The results of the two cohorts are extremely consistent ... and should be reassuring, if we look at the traditional indicators of these standardized incidences and mortalities: With respect to mortality, there is no standardized mortality of farmers above normal for any form of cancer. On the contrary, their mortality is significantly lower than that of the general population for most types of tumors, the others simply having normal mortalities. For the impacts, the results for farmers are overall a little worse than for the mortalities, but overall are very reassuring. Only 3 cancer sites show significant excesses among them: cancers of the lip, prostate, and multiple myeloma. We will come back in another article on these 3 particular cases, but let's start with a freeze-frame on the overall results: for about 1/3 of the studied locations (essentially cancers of the respiratory and digestive tracts, and of the bladder), the standardized incidence of pesticide users is significantly lower than normal; for nearly 2/3 of the other locations, it shows no significant difference with the general population. Moreover, these insignificant results are most often less than 1, and with relatively narrow confidence intervals, it is therefore unlikely that they hide much of the effects of pesticides that would have escaped the statistical "filter" of as much as here again the results of Agrican and AHS are very consistent. The results of these cohort studies, which should confirm or not the results obtained by the case-control studies, could thus have been considered reassuring: if we stick to the usual interpretation of standardized incidences and mortality, there are only 3 forms of cancer for which there is a significant excess in them, and this excess is only observed for incidence, not for mortality. The effect "healthy worker": statistical truth, or loophole? Curiously (or not), these results have in fact been very little highlighted in official bibliographic reviews and meta-analyzes, such as the collective expertise of INSERM 2013, without the reason for this reservation being expressed very clearly. . In fact, it is to this day the interdepartmental mission on compensation for pesticides already cited [3] that led INSERM to explain in the most transparent way the reasons for its reluctance: the way of life of farmers is associated with several protective factors against cancers. They smoke less than the general population, and often have a more balanced diet, which may explain their low incidence of respiratory and digestive cancers. In addition, it seems that we observe a healthy worker effect, already observed for other occupations involving regular physical exercise: the health of these professionals is often better than average. Consequently, INSERM warns that these favorable effects could obscure the negative effects of pesticides: it is possible that some cancers favored by pesticides will go unnoticed when farmers are compared to the general population, because the way of life healthier farmers would compensate for this effect. That's why INSERM warns against using too much "Simplistic" standardized implications, that a normal incidence would show the lack of effect of pesticides. This reluctance of epidemiologists is entirely acceptable, but it means that standardized incidence and mortality, which they continue to calculate unmistakably in their publications, are not valid indicators. It is therefore a little surprising that this problem has not yet been addressed, while the first syntheses on prospective cohorts date back some ten years. It is common in other areas to correct the incidence depending on the consumption of tobacco or alcohol, several studies on farmers have done so. In addition, the more general objection to the "healthy worker" effect could be mitigated by developing standardized impacts, where the reference population would no longer be the general population, but the general labor force: but we did not so far no proposal from INSERM in this sense. Moreover, the reasoning of INSERM has a consequence that should be verifiable in the Agrican cohort: if, for certain cancers, there is a "healthy worker" effect that masks the harmful effect of pesticides, in this case the the incidence of non-pesticide farmers should be lower than that of pesticide users: indeed, the so-called "healthy worker effect" should be exerted in these non-users of pesticides, as in conventional farmers, but without being diminished by the contrary effect of pesticides. However, the last assessment of the incidence of cancer in Agrican [4] does not demonstrate it at all, it is even a reverse trend that we observe [5]! Fig 1: Standardized incidence of cancers (all types) among farmers and agricultural workers in the Agrican cohort, based on their use of pesticides (the "users of other pesticides" are people who have only used products veterinarians, or pesticides for the maintenance of uncultivated areas). The dots represent the average value, the vertical lines the 95% confidence interval. The authors did not make a statistical analysis to verify if the differences between these 3 populations are significant, but we note that the 95% confidence intervals (vertical lines) of pesticide users and non-users of pesticides do not do not overlap. It is therefore likely that this difference is significant ... but against the non-users of pesticides, in which cancers are more common! Certainly, when looking in detail, by type of cancer, the confidence intervals found for non-pesticide farmers are too high to draw reliable conclusions. But, in any case, there is currently no evidence to support statistically the hypothesis that factors protecting farmers from cancer would be strong enough to mask a harmful effect of pesticides. The flight forward towards the irrefutability Epidemiologists have therefore rejected the use of standardized incidence and mortality to estimate whether or not pesticides cause cancer among farmers. They have a reasonable objection (the effect "healthy worker") but whose veracity has not been proven to date. Instead of finally tackling the statistical proof of the existence of this "healthy worker" effect, by comparing farmers users and non-users of pesticides to the general labor force, recent studies have rather moved aside , focusing now on comparisons between farmers, depending on the crops they produce. Several recent publications on the Agrican cohort highlight significant differences in the incidence of some cancers, depending on the crops produced or animals raised on the farm. Since each pesticide is generally only used on a fairly narrow range of crops, these results are generally interpreted as indicators that would identify the specific pesticides that would cause the excess of cancers. This is of course an interesting track, but there are still two rather troublesome gaps common to these studies: They are no longer comparable with the general population: it is of interest to know, for example, that there are significantly more prostate cancers in farmers growing grasslands than in farmers growing crops. not, as observed in a recent Agrican publication [6]. But it still does not tell us if farmers with grasslands have more prostate cancers than the general population. These comparisons between agricultural production systems distinguish a fairly large number of crops and / or animal species: in the example just cited, the authors distinguished the incidence of prostate cancer associated with 13 different cultures. This is typically an analysis potentially affected by the well-known effect of "multiple comparisons": the risk of obtaining a statistically significant result, but simply due to chance, when many statistical tests are performed. In this case, with 13 comparisons, an elementary probability calculation shows us that this risk is 49% (ie 1- 0.9513) [7]. A result of this type should therefore be considered as a serious alert that to one of these two conditions: Or its significant character remains confirmed after an additional statistical test to eliminate the effect "multiple comparison" (Bonferroni test or FDR procedure). However, none of these tests were performed in this study. Or we see a result of the same type, for the same culture and the same cancer, in another cohort. To our knowledge, this link between prostate cancer and grassland has not been observed anywhere else. In addition, she is associated in Agrican with an excess of prostate cancer among cattle farmers (for obvious reason: they are more likely than other farmers to cultivate grasslands). However, the American AHS cohort shows no significant link between cattle and prostate cancer. [I] With this type of study comparing the risks according to the productions, one thus accumulates significant results, perhaps due to chance, and never confirmed, but which maintain the suspicions on a harmful effect of the pesticides, even when one do not know if the excess observed for certain crops corresponds to a risk higher than that of the general population. The field of possible effects of pesticides is therefore increasingly restricted, to a few localizations of cancers and some agricultural productions, with scientific arguments more and more ambiguous. From the scientific hypothesis to the irrefutable consensus As we have seen throughout this brief history of epidemiological studies, the likely field for the possible effects of pesticides on farmers' cancers has steadily declined over time: Early case-control studies suggested perceptible adverse effects at the level of all farmers, for a dozen types of cancer Prospective cohorts do not show serious (but not completely consistent) evidence for three types of cancers: lip, prostate and multiple myeloma. However, as we will see in a forthcoming article, the recent studies on these three cancers are not intended to clarify the uncertainties concerning them: explanation of the discrepancy between incidence and mortality, cause of the excess of incidences observable also for non-users of pesticides. The trend is now to compare subpopulations of farmers, which are supposed to demonstrate the risk of pesticides associated with these crops, with methods that are more and more statistically questionable, and without any comparison with the general population. The level of evidence required to suggest a carcinogenic effect of pesticides has therefore steadily declined. The results suggesting their safety (a hypothesis that is not extravagant, since it is only a confirmation of the validity of the approval procedures) are systematically rejected, with objections admittedly admissible, but whose epidemiologists never demonstrate validity: Standardized normalized or even less than 1 incidences are discarded, perhaps biased by a mysterious "healthy worker" effect, admittedly plausible, but that epidemiologists regularly invoke without ever trying to correct or even measure it The absence of a difference between user and non-pesticide farmers is not commented on, or even interpreted as demonstrating "contamination" of non-pesticide users, again without demonstration (see next article). This evolution of the discourses reflects the drift of the epistemological status of the hypothesis of a carcinogenic effect of pesticides on farmers: it has progressively passed from the status of scientific working hypothesis to that of irrefutable consensus. However, contrary to common sense, this term of irrefutable is not flattering. Since the work of K. Popper, we consider that the main difference between true science and pseudo-science is its refutability: a really scientific hypothesis is a hypothesis for which we can imagine an experiment to refute it. The initial hypothesis that pesticides cause cancer in farmers is a scientific hypothesis: it can be disproved (or validated) by measuring cancer incidence among farmers who use pesticides, and comparing it to rest of the population. But we have seen that this experience leans rather for the refutation. The new hypothesis, according to which the harmful effect of pesticides could be masked by a "healthy worker" effect, is also a scientific hypothesis: it can be refuted (or validated) by two means: Comparing the incidence of cancer among farmers to that of other occupations involving moderate physical activity Or by comparing the incidence of cancer among pesticide users and non-users Now none of these demonstrations have been made today, the refutability of this hypothesis remains entirely theoretical. In order for farmer cohort studies to regain a truly scientific status, it is high time for epidemiologists to define what criteria they would be prepared to accept that the incidence or mortality of a type of cancer in farmers can be considered normal. This is all the more necessary since the precautionary principle requires defining the criteria according to which a technology can be considered harmless. It is precisely the work of the health agencies, to take responsibility for saying, from the experimental results, that a product can be considered as not dangerous. If the researchers do not decide on rules allowing them to make the same decision (which is understandable, after all it is not really their job), it is necessary that it is the agencies which seize this expert work on the results of epidemiological studies, in order to draw clear and operational conclusions, rather than to extend to infinity the domain of suspicions and uncommitted hypotheses. In addition, INSERM publications on the Agrican cohort sacrifice to the sinfulness of research: the focus on statistically significant results [8]. The mass of insignificant results is not the subject of any additional analysis (except meta-analyzes to try to make them significant ...), whereas the notion of "non-significant" result actually covers two very different realities: Results that are really "insignificant" because their wide confidence interval precludes any possibility of interpretation "Quasi-significant" results, of which the critical probability (probability that they are due to chance) is barely greater than 5%, and whose proof value is therefore barely lower than those who obtained the Grail of the stamp " statistically significant. Fig 2: Examples of standardized incidences obtained for 3 forms of cancer in the last balance sheet of the Agrican cohort for farmers who use pesticides. The dots represent the average value, the vertical lines the 95% confidence interval. In scientific publications, the analysis focuses on the significant results (whose confidence interval does not fall within the value 1 in red), especially if they are greater than 1, because they are the ones that demonstrate a connection between exposure to pesticides and cancer. The insignificant results are very little commented, while they have very variable values ​​in health expertise: in the example given, it is impossible to conclude anything about the incidence of liver cancer because the width its confidence interval is much greater than its deviation from 1. On the other hand, the result concerning rectal cancer, although not significant, is much more relevant in terms of health expertise, because the value 1 is very close to the upper limit of its confidence interval. A simple complementary analysis would make it possible to calculate the probability that there is an excess of rectal cancer, but it is obvious that this probability is only very little greater than 5% (the usual threshold of significance). This type of analysis, on the power of non-significant results, would be necessary in health expertise to prioritize research, and is not carried out by researchers. The distinction between these two types of results would be important to guide future research. On the example we saw in Figure 2, it is likely that the uncertainty will further decrease on the results of rectal cancer, along cohort follow-up, until reaching a level where we can conclude without much risk of error that there is no particular risk for this cancer. In contrast, for liver cancer, the number of cases currently observed is too low, and as a result the range of uncertainty is so wide that it is unlikely that the Agrican cohort alone will achieve results. clearer in the future. An analysis of the statistical power of Agrican's non-significant results would therefore be essential, even if it is not in the habits of research (but it is perfectly within the purview of the health agencies). While waiting for this eventual takeover by ANSES, we are witnessing this strange paradox: while France has the largest prospective cohort of farmers in the world with Agrican, its decisions on the recognition of occupational diseases do not take into account no account of the results of this cohort: none of the only three types of cancer for which Agrican provides warning signs is currently classified as professional. On the other hand, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is included in the tables of occupational diseases, while in Africa Agriculture gives no indication of this. This subject alone deserves a second article because it illustrates other scientific problems not solved by the epidemiologists' approach. It will also be an opportunity to examine the strength of an argument often presented as determining by opponents of pesticides: the cases of relations with dose effect, between exposure to pesticides and the risk of certain cancers.
supersonico
17/7/2018
14:38
Good info on Gut Micro Biome .. responsibility for 99% of metabolic function in human body. hTTp://alturl.com/mc8ad ……………………………….. hTTp://alturl.com/xxkaq Report from Danish EPA on toxicity of #pesticide mixtures. Clear results, as usual in well-designed mixtox studies: individual "no toxic" levels (NOAELs) don't hold if chemicals are combined. Combination effects of pesticides on birth weight and metabolic programming in rat offspring hTTps://twitter.com/ThoBaSwe/status/1019103907924996096 …………………………….. Those Silly French people informing the public about Pesticides again. hTTps://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/050772-000-A/pesticide-et-sante-l-equation-sans-solution/ hTTp://alturl.com/u7kza
supersonico
16/7/2018
11:06
The French debate. hTTps://www.publicsenat.fr/emission/un-monde-en-docs/agriculture-bientot-la-fin-des-pesticides-87397 hTTp://alturl.com/uyqwz Agriculture, soon the end of pesticides? 39min If France is the largest agricultural and wine producer in Europe, France is also the largest consumer of pesticides. While the intensive use of plant protection products has long been synonymous with economic growth and food security, the negative effects they could have on health are now debated. Between economic and political constraints, a consensus to regulate the use of pesticides seems difficult to find. This is evidenced by the government's many hesitations to ban glyphosate. So, is the causality between the use of phytosanitary products and the multiplication of serious diseases proven? Angélique Delahaye Députée européenne (LR), Productrice de légumes Paul François Agriculteur en Charente, Président de Phyto-victimes Michèle Rivasi Députée européenne (EELV) Henri Cabanel Sénateur (PS) de l'Hérault, Viticulteur Sébastien David Vigneron bio en Indre-et-Loire ………………………………………………. hTTps://truthout.org/articles/area-of-global-dead-zones-doubling-every-10-years/ hTTp://alturl.com/hrr94
supersonico
15/7/2018
06:28
Yes, I always like to see the the management putting their money behind the rationale. Perhaps they are not done yet? I note that some appear to think that the useful life of conventional and synthetic chemistry is coming to an end and see biologicals as a direct replacement. Nothing could be further from the truth though! Biologicals do offer an alternative, but it most cases they are neither a competitor nor replacement, they are 'complementary' to the conventional chemistry approach and will form an increasingly important part of the 'portfolio'. Complimentary is also how the large players see biologicals, but they are also taking biologicals very seriously. They can see where the industry heading (increasing resistance and consumers wanting reduced residues) and are investing accordingly. Staying with large players investing accordingly, I note that in November an Eastman representative is a key note speaker at BIOCONTROL LATAM, the Largest International Event to Cover Biocontrol in Latin America. He is presenting Eden's CEDROZ on potatoes, squash, pumpkin etc - Mr. Harry Garita, Eastman Chemical Company (Costa Rica) CEDROZ - a New Terpene Nematicide Against Root Knot Nematode on Solanaceae and Cucurbits hxxps://www.biocontrollatam.com/programme
wan
14/7/2018
23:20
I agree. hTTp://alturl.com/i7qke
supersonico
14/7/2018
18:07
Brucie5, FWIW, I think now is the time to invest. We'll see.
investingisatrickygame
14/7/2018
16:10
Interesting. Leaps/ Bayer 2017 In November Bayer kicked off „leaps“. This new approach completes the existing R&D capabilities and aims to enable breakthrough innovations across healthcare and agriculture. hTTp://alturl.com/f7ybb hTTps://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=52&v=T7t-qZjKLI4
supersonico
14/7/2018
14:46
Indeed. I've recently sold down my holding in TERN (and will probably live to regret it!) but the move upwards there was over a couple of months, and probably started with the RNS'd interest of a larger private holder. Recent bod buying doesn't really cut it as an 'outer', so trying to discern how far we are from that all important BO.
brucie5
14/7/2018
14:30
Brucie5; In Seeing machines terms I think were at the 5/6p mark before the Fovio news hit. I see many parallels between Fovio Chip and Sustaine.
supersonico
14/7/2018
14:23
Brucie5 Soon I believe. Over the last 5 years Taminco/Eastman and Sipcam are doing in public imo what Bayer are doing in NDA private. I seriously cannot believe that Bayer saw what both those companies saw and said ah we'll just develop the Companion animal product thanks. Both Eastman and Sipcam have invested heavily as they see the obvious commercial value at a time when 'conventional chemistry ' is coming to an end of it's useful life. This I believe has been intentionally down played by Eden publicly and I can only assume that's related to Bayer NDA's combined with the slow pace of regulation and evolved into a plan to launch 'Sustaine' in a coordinated well publicised way. That all fits in my deluded mind with the constant delays and the now coordinated effort to 'in short order' bring them into the light with Lykele van der Broek holding the torch. That's what I think is about to happen... for what it's worth.
supersonico
14/7/2018
14:22
Brucie5 "I love this company and what it does, but when will it EVER begin to deliver on its promise for investors? And how will we recognise the catalysts?" I love this statement. Those who really know Eden will undoubtedly love it. That certainly is the case with my group of friends and acquaintances invested. Your best statement is 'And how will we recognise the catalysts?' How will the non-invested see or recognise the catalysts? Very difficult right. You have to lead a horse to water. It can then decide if it wants to drink or not. Eden has not led the investment community to water. I know I go on about it. I realise that people like Tonypeters on LSE feel the same. But the fact remains that not enough people know about, understand or believe in Eden. Eden needs to change that. With their new Chairman, Lykele, they have an easier opportunity to deliver the same. It is an easy task to do if you know your audience, know what they want to hear, how they want to hear it and you can deliver this. When you have done this, your investor base and interest base with grow. Then, you can open the door to institutional investors and provide them the opportunity to invest. You will be less reliant on PI's at this stage and can talk the language you choose with these professional investors. Goal number one though is to take the first step.
investingisatrickygame
14/7/2018
13:24
I love this company and what it does, but when will it EVER begin to deliver on its promise for investors? And how will we recognise the catalysts?
brucie5
14/7/2018
12:31
Super, You are funny and a right sniffer! Well done for putting the Alice and London Live connection together. I had found her on the net, but didn't relate her work to, possibly, Eden.
investingisatrickygame
14/7/2018
12:10
Ed Hugo is a Agriculture analyst at VSA capital.. and mates with lofty Powerscroft Nick.. @see you at the races.. Dibden. Prof Alice Roberts is an academic, writer and broadcaster who would do a very good job of explaining to a wider audience the ground breaking significance of Eden Tech. A while back this incredibly busy woman who travels the world, has a busy academic life and a young family managed to have time to discover Eden on Twitter and coincidently a camera man fella who does big TV live events, so no small fish managed to find Eden on Twitter that very same day. Coincidence or Incongruence..#Sustaine #BayerTimeNow
supersonico
Chat Pages: 187  186  185  184  183  182  181  180  179  178  177  176  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:30 V: D:20180719 00:30:57