Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[bermudashorts] 15/2/2019 12:24

Tommyflowers - apologies you're right and my 19781 is wrong - it is Ichor Medical Systems. Surprising review!

[gazza] 15/2/2019 12:10

TF, whatever.

[inanaco] 15/2/2019 12:03

Gazza

You actually used Lindy's words on moditope not SCIB1 ""which is the topic""

the ""mechanism of action posts"" on here are about SCIB1 ..

ATB

[torquayfan] 15/2/2019 11:42

Gazza - actually, you 'merely' posted, ''I have asked who these people are, as yet no one has owned up''.

That statement expresses that you think, Posters are accountable to you and even moreso, disappointment that they fail to own up - to you.

You've had a fair wriggle about it as usual, but maybe you should have explained it more fully in the first place. Posting in haste ?

The presumption that posters are wrong and you are right is more than a bit lofty - it's up to them M8.

Dinner time - byee . .

[bermudashorts] 15/2/2019 11:30

Any lse posters here,

Have just caught up on lse bb. re. Tomyflowers 6.57 glassdoor Ichor post early this morning. Might be worth someone pointing out that the company being reviewed in his link isn't Ichor Medical Systems - it's Ichor Systems, a completely different company and no connection at all to Ichor MS.

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

You're lucky lad - We {7 of us} had to wash in a bucket of cold water and use the 'outside lav'
But, did we moan ???
.
.
TOO BLOODY RIGHT WE DID

[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?