Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
This will be my last comment in relation to Scinv_Temp and the only reason I'm commenting is that his claims re. ORR are simply not true and it's important that holders realise that the objective responses achieved so far are banked as far as the overall trial is concerned.
The posts are all there to see from 9th June when he claimed that if any of the 11 patients with an objective response showed progression at a subsequent scan then the ORR would be reduced. Moreover he claimed that the only objective responses that would contribute to ORR would be the last measure taken (in this case at 2 years from outset). This is simply not true and if anyone is unsure then please do check with Scancell - the objective responses achieved to date are banked and will count as part of the ORR for the whole trial, just as they did for the Evaxion trial in my last post.
So then you have to ask yourself why someone who claims to have 'led the biology' to take drugs into clinical trials and who now is a full time investor advising biotech. companies on a part time basis would make such a basic mistake. Moreover when challenged would scrabble around trying (but failing) to find evidence to support his claim whilst responding in an aggressive and accusatory way to posters on this bb.
Much more revealing though are his accusations of dishonesty towards Lindy Durrant. Quite apart from the fact that Lindy is a well known and highly respected Professor of Cancer Immunotherapy with an academic career spanning decades, it seems very odd and frankly unprofessional for someone who claims to act on an advisory basis to biotech companies to accuse a biotech CEO of dishonesty on a public forum.
I'm sure this post will generate more accusations and outrage and attempts will be made at yet more negative blanket posting but he has already admitted to previously being banned from lse and I suspect he'll eventually be banned again.
Great post Bermuda.
I do wonder why posters like scinv_temp exist, and the only conclusion I can come to is that they are trying to depress the share price in order to buy cheap (btw shorting is not a thing in most AIM shares, so it's not even as sophisticated as that). There is simply no other motivation, unless they are simply attention seekers who like the sound of their own voice?
They probably bought when the price was higher and expected to make a quick buck. The RNS they want hasn't come quickly enough and they are down big on paper. Now they look to blame someone - the respected poster (whom they probably agreed with in the beginning) and the CEO are prime candidates. They just can't accept and take responsibility for their own decision to invest.
I’ve not read every post but there is a heck of a lot of angst in ones I did read.
It’s probably a case of Vision and Reality causing bluster and accusations.
That person needs to chill out for a few months until the data arrives.
Scinv truly believes some posters here, give a fig about what he’s saying.
That takes quite a psychological condition to be fair.
If you just boil it down to its basic principles...
Our hypothesis - "If our cancer vaccine shrinks tumours, we believe people with cancer will live longer" - that is the purpose of the study in its purest form.
So the first question is "Does the vaccine shrink the tumour?" - in our study, this is a primary objective and we are looking for either an objective response or complete response. As soon as we observe that in a patient, we start to try to answer the second part..
"Do people with cancer live longer after the tumour responds to the treatment" - we are now looking at secondary outcomes -
The ongoing measure of the response (does the tumour continue to shrink throughout the follow up period, does it shrink further or does it regress and grow again)
Duration of Response (how long is the tumor observed to be responding)
Progression Free Survival - (how long do does the patient live before the disease starts to progress again)
Overall Survival Rate (how many people survive and for how long)
These secondary measures are actually intended to prove that shrinking the tumor actually translates to patient benefit. There is no point spending money on a product, even if it is proven to shrink tumours, if that actually doesn't result in a benefit, and the patients continue to die.
So in that context, it makes absolutely ZERO common sense, and would fundamentally run contrary to the purpose of the study, if the investigators said "if a patient does regress within the two years, we are going to pretend it never happened in the first place and ignore them from our data".
That all makes perfect sense Konar.
Different measure are taken which collectively give the overall picture.
* measures
Ah, back to the good stuff being posted here.
Konar, great post, focus back on what Scancell are trying to achieve, and gives a hint as to future valuation pehaps.
Great achievement by Merck/Keytruda too.
Volume still tiny to warrant any significant price movement, either way, but following De"ar post Friday not so sure this particular seller, who offloaded 1m shares last week, maybe, has finished just yet. A 100K sell like yesterdays at 10.06, only relevant to the small volumes here at present, mirrors last week so far. Perhaps if buys increase, this seller will sell more into it.
Have a great day, seems like summer is fnally amongst us.
This is not an, 'I told you so', but IMO Scinv was obviously trouble from the start. So I filtered him and left it there, (and others better to handle it).
On the positive side, the BB was very quiet at the time. Scinv curiously enlivened debate but clearly had no real arguments and lost convincingly.
Overall I'm grateful for the saga and actually, learnt a bit through the process of reading the replies. GLA
Well, I'm not sure that he managed to educate we fools.
Ray I didn't say Scinv did, 'educate we fools'. But some of the ensuing replies to him were useful.
I didn’t agree with ScinV’s point of view and it did seem like he was goading Berm.
However, I am sure Berm is well able to look after himself but worse behaviour is with the self righteous p**ck who would dictate to us what we can and cannot see on this BB.
The fragile ego that had ScinV’s posts deleted is a bigger bully than ScinV and probably exerts coercive control on somebody in his real life circle and is without doubt a pathetic and weak individual.
Morning TF, guess you are right, the replies Scin_v provoked has led to some awesome reposts as we read yesterday.
I posted last week just an article on how far we are behind other countries in cancer care and survival, ignoring the noise we are subjected to.
I only watch the news on Sky for about ten minutes in the morning now, and they say we are 25 years behind other countries, particularly Denmark and Norway in Cancer treatments and care. Mind boggling!!!
Frankly I couldn’t see anything on this board for the stream of disruptive posts. It is like ADVFN used to be…..
Sums up why trolls post.
Shame really good posts from Konar and Bermudashorts, to name just two.