Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[ivyspivey] 02/4/2019 17:56

Tosh your synopsis of the Idiot

So ineptico, why are you so ardent in your posts when you have sold out every share in Scancell at a massive loss and invested anything that was left of your original investment , into VAL ?

Fits in very well with what we know of the Stupid Boy.Gets everything wrong and then spends months on VAL board criticising the science just so he can get a low entry.
Hypocrite,Liar and All Round Nasty,EGO driven,Obnoxious Nerd

[ivyspivey] 02/4/2019 17:31

The Village Idiot is surpassing himself today.
Says to Knowlesi you need to be science passed to post on the science so by his judgement you need a Biology omlevel the only one he has got.
So so if you need at last a relevant O level to comment then he should shut up about Politics,Economics and Business and leave that to the grown ups rather than the spoilt children.
He said we would be out of EU on 29th March as it as law.Thst is ne he got wrong.
Grand Challemge Nailed on and Trouser £20m well wrong on that one.
£8 a share we’ll do I need to say anymore.
Criticises DE as not understanding SCLP but he does?What an arrogant @@@@
Argues with Boom on the science whilst agreeing LD has an high IQ and great understanding of the science she is at the summit whilst he is at the nadir with the intellect and IQ of an Amoeba.
Absolute laughable.He just cheer me up as he goes on his rants

[the real lozan] 02/4/2019 17:03

The 'Rational' re. my 'point' {re. the science} -
In WW1, it was said, that Admiral Jellico - was the ONLY man "Who could LOSE the war in an afternoon".
Although, there are many 'minor issues' that may cause 'set-backs', which may be over-come...Should there be a 'FAILURE' in the 'As yet unPROVEN science'.. that ' Could LOSE this war in an afternoon'.
UNTIL the science is officially PROVEN { not by inane'n'co - who has ulterior motives for CLAIMING it already is PROVEN } the science RISK is an 'Admiral Jellico'... ONLY a FOOL would ignore.

[oldnotwise] 02/4/2019 16:37

Inanaco
I have a CORE HOLDING Of SCLP (that holding increases with any short term trades I might make) but the CORE holding of SCLP remains as a smaller proportion of my overall portfolio. That remains static and is only one of a number of shares (including other Baby Bios) in my PORTFOLIO. SCLP forms One (of several) core holdings of the Bio Market sector of my overall investments. Hope that clarifies.
I have no idea why you keep going on about it (unless you're suggesting I don't hold any other shares which is not the case).
So PLEASE stop going on and on about it like a demented parrot.
I see you even had to cut and paste your definition from Investopedia.
Just for everybody's asistance I'll furnish a little more of the quote for you,

"Core holdings are the central investments – or sometimes the sole part – of a long-term portfolio. ... The secondary investments are called satellite or non-core holdings, meaning they focus on areas of the market poised to outperform like growth stocks or specific sectors.......15 Jan 2018"

Full article
hxxps://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/coreholding.asp
ATB

[bermudashorts] 02/4/2019 16:16

Inanaco,

Why do you say that David Evans went out under a cloud?

[bermudashorts] 02/4/2019 16:09

inanaco,

glad to see that you've changed the wording around your claims for 50% CR rate to make it clear that it's your opinion and not the target Scancell are aiming for. See - we got there in the end:)

[inanaco] 02/4/2019 15:42

The fact is the Science isn't working is it.

LOL

needs further explaining Panama7

[tosh123] 02/4/2019 15:14

This is beautiful " the issues is Knowlesi ... you are not a science passed poster ".

Passed by who ?
The resident copy and paste LIAR... my my, what a vote of confidence that would be !

So ineptico, why are you so ardent in your posts when you have sold out every share in Scancell at a massive loss and invested anything that was left of your original investment , into VAL ?

[tosh123] 02/4/2019 15:11

The LIAR returns...

[panama7] 02/4/2019 15:05

Inanaco, the Science has done absolutely nothing in getting a return for Investors. We have had 7 years of development and research which has led to an ever decreasing share price The fact is the Science isn't working is it.

[inanaco] 02/4/2019 15:00

Panama7

would love to see a post that actually questions the science from Lozan

it will be the First ...

the only post on the science Lozan makes is photosynthesis .. grass grows

[panama7] 02/4/2019 14:37

Lozan, you are right to question the Science, we first raised at 22p to advance the Science and were told at the end of the trial , that the results were beyond expectations ( now that could depend on what was expected, maybe the bar was set very low ). We have since had to raise at 17, 12 and 10p to advance the Science but surely if you are advancing the science and adding value to the IP then you would have thought the fundraisings would be increasing in value. So many questions for this totally inept BOD to answer. Let's face it even the CSO isn't willing to back the Science by going all in and working at it full time.

[inanaco] 02/4/2019 14:31

ONW

and despite all that ...

You have a core holding ...

DEFINITION of Core Holding. Core holdings are the central investments – or sometimes the sole part – of a long-term portfolio

[oldnotwise] 02/4/2019 11:39

It's interesting to think about Disconnects.....

1 I guess we all understand the Disconnect between the IP and the share price (if we all accept that the Science is top notch).

2 Why the Disconnect between the Science and the BioPharma market? That is, in terms of perceived value of SCLP's IP (ie No significant market Financial commitmtent to SCLP's Platforms - where we are to believe that there's no chance of failure)?

3 Why the disconnect between a (Diminishing) Investor Group who will not accept that the NEGATIVE rerate in the share price over the last six/seven years is nothing to do with the Science)but somehow are completely incapable of looking critically at the Company's (Commercial) Management. It's possible that a critical look at the Management might reveal some clues as to the inability to Capitalise on Scancell's assets.

4 Why the disconnect from those who started out on Scancell's journey as Investors seven odd years ago, who having considered the history now see the outcome for the company as "Hopeful" rather than guaranteed. This is a disconnect between those original holders ho've now changed their view to one of hope that the company will realise its potential optimism from where we are now (Realists) and those who refuse to accept that there's been any change whatsoever in the outlook for the Company (Cheerleaders?).

Polarisation, it seems to be endemic ATM...
AIMO
ATB

[gooosed] 02/4/2019 11:09

L - Data, which takes funding.

Something our non Exec Chairman + side kicks Holloway & Lewis are charged (& charging for) with sorting.

[the real lozan] 02/4/2019 10:53

G -
I am not saying that the science is NOT "in fact every bit as exciting as LD believes it to be "
I think it 'fair' to say - *WE ALL* hope IT IS
I AM asking folks to ponder/ reason = WHY {as things stand} is this soo difficult to PROVE... IF -"the science is in fact every bit as exciting as LD believes it to be"???
.
Something is holding this BACK = WHY this is SUB 6p.{and NOT microsoft levels '0/-' }
.
Does ANYONE believe LD,SCLP would EVER say/ admit - 'At the moment, the science is NOT "in fact every bit as exciting as LD believes it to be "
The REALITY is, the WISER market view is -
"Something is holding this BACK = WHY this is SUB 6p."

[torquayfan] 02/4/2019 10:46

Thanks Gooosed - it's surprising that CRUK don't update every time a project moves to the next stage - it's only a few keyboard strokes after all.

[gooosed] 02/4/2019 10:30

Lozan - could it be that the science is in fact every bit as exciting as LD believes it to be but due to the chronic funding issues that UK Biotech faces, Scancell have, to quote a respected source, had to develop each vaccine platform sequentially rather than in parallel.

The fact that CRUK who, lets be honest have a good pedigree in developing multiple treatments from all directions (look at their collaborations) have only progressed SCIB2 to Exploratory may mean that SCIB2 was handed over to them while at a very early stage. Logic might suggest that this has been the case for Moditope also.

[gooosed] 02/4/2019 09:58

torquayfan - they confirmed via email that they update as & when a new compound is added. I have emailed them to see if there is a precedent for updating before next April for any other reason - if that makes sense.

[torquayfan] 02/4/2019 09:53

Gooosed 21360 - surely CRUK update this table each time a project reaches a new phase? Hopefully we won't have to wait a year for more insight into 'progress'.

[gooosed] 02/4/2019 09:40

tosh123 - agree re salaries. No sooner feet under the desk Holloway gets a pay rise - so obviously his buddy Chiplin had it in the pipeline prior to his being installed. I wouldn't mind so much but there's absolutely nothing dynamic or inspiring about his performance - can't even stick to getting the website revamped as mentioned at the AGM - although Scancell appear to have far bigger problems.

On the positive front - the BioNTech collaboration was noted in a presentation slide as originally scheduled to run to end of Q2 2019. So news due on that front and dare I say it the SCIB1 IND is still to come.

[tosh123] 02/4/2019 09:40

Brilliant post from RR over on the other place.... sums the current situation up very nicely.

[tosh123] 02/4/2019 09:31

Panama,
enough is enough.

[panama7] 02/4/2019 09:23

Tosh, totally agree, we are constantly told how great this Science yet there is absolutely no urgency being shown to get it into trials. Now six years without a new trial starting. A combined 7 years late on original trial timelines. We are told SCIB1 combi held up for a minor issue and have had no update for 6 months. Of course our BOD have awarded themselves extravagant pay rises and also have changed share options targets twice yet have the audacity and arrogance to state their interests are aligned with their shareholders. I wonder if distressed sellers like CF after supporting fundraises at 10 & 12p believe having to sell at 6p was in their best interests.