Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[gazza] 15/2/2019 11:12

TF,

"Do we have to account to you for recs ?"

I don't know if there are any more ways to explain this to you.
NO. I'm not auditing recs.
NO. People can rec what they like, they are not accountable to me.

I merely asked why anyone would rec what is patently complete rubbish? As no one has so far given any explanation to this bizarre behaviour I will hazard a guess: People are giving a thumbs up not to what they know IS true but what they WISH were true. (see Lozan's earlier question re Expect/think/hope)

[gazza] 15/2/2019 11:06

Loz,

"Hope you don't have anything 'depending on it' in the 'near future'"

No big secret as I have mentioned this in the past: Only re-fitting the bathroom. Still, having to use a 1970's Mimosa suite isn't life critical.

[the real lozan] 15/2/2019 10:37

REALITY -
The FACT IS, you CAN 'pontificate/RAMP/trHYPE ' all you want about/on the 'OUTCOME you wish to CLAIM'... Even before those TRIALS have yet to commence
BUT
In the REAL world... There is RISK that those TRIALS may eventually give results that DO NOT fully meet the trHYPE.
.
That is WHY the TRIALS are 'vital' in the first place
When, How they are paid for, How long they will last ETC.
OR
When they will *ACTUALLY* BEGIN, as yet, is undetermined { There have been many 'false starts' as *WE ALL* know}
.
However, *WE ALL* CAN see the DANGERS / RISK of 'predicting with CERTAINTY, the OUTCOME' before the 'vital' TRIALS even BEGIN. { By the same gang }
.
In the meantime..REALITY is = .the S P remains 'stuck at circa 6.5p'

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 10:12

Thanks bermuda. Would be interested in anything you find. ATB

[the real lozan] 15/2/2019 10:11

Gash -
Best of luck with that.
Hope you don't have anything 'depending on it' in the 'near future'

[bermudashorts] 15/2/2019 10:07

Wigwammer - will try to find link to slides that accompanied presentation. I'm trying to find the latest information re. trial design and numbers - it has changed several times since 2016. They seem to have stopped including patient nos. on the slides which is why I was interested in your figure - it suggests they've settled on a total number.

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 10:06

Gaz - I also mean this politely, and I'm genuinely interested in your perceptions, but you did say of LD's words... "I'm sure the statement is true there WILL be responders."

[gazza] 15/2/2019 10:06

I certainly hope to (14.7p)
I don't think it is safe to "expect" anything.
Underwater, but only need a snorkel.
Commiserations to those who need SCUBA gear (with yellow octopus) or even a submarine.

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 10:02

Ah. Poor old timer. Trying to change the subject and WE ALL know why :)

[the real lozan] 15/2/2019 09:57

May one ask a 'Genuine' question -
I appreciate it depends on how deep one is 'underwater here' ..
BUT
When / in weeks,months,years...Do investors here - including the 'Kelp harvesters'...Think / Expect / Hope = To reach a 'break-even' point ???

[gazza] 15/2/2019 09:56

Wiggy,

"of your view that there WILL be responders to the vaccine"

Could I politely point out - these were prof Durrant's words not mine.

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 09:43

Poor loz. It just gets worse and worse. The quote is from LD at the calculus presentation. It comes as little surprise to know the old timer hasn't listened to it :)

[the real lozan] 15/2/2019 09:40

Bob et al -
Would anyone like to bet on 'where the origin of the source re. 3 responders figure came from' ???
Would anyone care to further bet - that *WE ALL* won't be told/find-out ='where the origin of the source re. 3 responders figure came from' ???
BUT
*WE ALL* have a 'good idea' 'where the origin of the source re. 3 responders figure came from' ???

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 09:39

Berm - calculus presentation, full length version, circa 22:15.. though I'm pretty sure it was covered at the AGM too.

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 09:33

Gaz - you can debate the point there are "no risks" if you want to - no objections here - but I'm more interested in people's perceptions of your view that there WILL be responders to the vaccine. As mentioned, let's try and keep it civilised.

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 09:28

Will have a look for the source. Let's try and keep it civilised though - I'm happy to be guided otherwise as long as it's done in an adult way!

[gazza] 15/2/2019 09:27

wiggy,

>Beyond that, your only concern is safety<<br />
Not true. We are debating the view "there are NO risks"
In order to prove this view WRONG you only need to find ONE risk. This disproves the theory but is not necessarily the only risk. It's like if you need 20 runs to win a cricket match, you stop when you have got 20, not carry on for a couple of hundred.

[bermudashorts] 15/2/2019 09:11

Wigwammer - where did you get the 3 responders figure from?

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 08:59

Gaz - they only need 3 responders in the moditope trial, and you are sure they will get at least 2. Beyond that, your only concern is safety. If inanaco is suggesting the investment is "riskless", you do not sound far behind. Can I also suggest that if the market agreed and comprehended your point, the stock would be 10 fold higher than where it is now. Have a good day :)"I'm sure the statement is true there WILL be responders. She doesn't say how many or what percentage. What she DOESN'T say is that there WON'T be any adverse reactions. I'm not sure why some are finding this so difficult to comprehend."

[ivyspivey] 15/2/2019 08:58

Morning Gazza,
Yes is an open discussion.Certainly my point yesterday was as one persons ability to assess and deal with risk may well be different to others.
I took a serious haircut yesterday but will survive and I got the risk wrong.
Tried to highlight that had a lot of personal contact with others who took a big haircut and it has caused them serious financial and/ or personal issues like depression and marital problems.
Merely wanted to remind people there are very individual tragedy’s as a result of underestimating the risk on any share.
GLA

[gazza] 15/2/2019 07:51

Inan, "Gazza Does this post relate to Bermuda and my thread ?"It relates to the 'open' discussion (Inan, Bermuda, Gazza, ivy, wiggy, tosh) as to whether or not you can't rule out any possible reason for failure. The consensus is you can't. Case dismissed.Next?Ps. We do try to run an open board here, threads are not "owned" by any one individual or syndicate.

[gazza] 15/2/2019 07:45

TF, try and pay attention, I am always challenging him on LSE. As for "auditing" recs - I'm not. Merely passing a comment that Inan gets 4 recs for every post on LSE even when it is complete nonsense. I presume one is you?

[wigwammer] 15/2/2019 07:34

So the only risk for gaz is "how many" and safety, and he can't understand why the market is finding this difficult to comprehend. There was me thinking he sat with the cautious team.."I'm sure the statement is true there WILL be responders. She doesn't say how many or what percentage. What she DOESN'T say is that there WON'T be any adverse reactions. I'm not sure why some are finding this so difficult to comprehend."

[inanaco] 15/2/2019 01:24

Gazza Does this post relate to Bermuda and my thread ?

only you have not said

Gazza14 Feb '19 - 22:41 - 19750 of 19753
0 1 0
Prof Durrant has stated:
“There WILL be a cohort of patients that respond really well to this vaccine that have high levels of autophagy and high levels of citrullination.̶1;

Perhaps she is neither naive nor a genius just a very dedicated scientist carrying out her duties to the best of her ability.

I’m sure the statement is true there WILL be responders. She doesn’t say how many or what percentage. What she DOESN’T say is that there WON’T be any adverse reactions.

I’m not sure why some are finding this so difficult to comprehend.